ComplaintsforBring the Crew, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  02/19/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Bring The Crew was provided to us as a trusted vendor of Allstate's Good Hands Network to perform the work on an insurance claim regarding a tree falling on our house. The tree fell in July of 2022 and the work is still not completed. They have completed the moving back in of furniture and the interior which we have signed off on, but there remains exterior work to complete and the roof repair is unacceptable. We have tried repeatedly to get Bring The Crew to complete their work but they have not made reasonable efforts to compete them nor are they responding to communications. We have documentation of efforts to communicate with them and for them to complete the work, but see no other choice than to file a complaint with the BBB.

  

  Business response

  02/28/2024

  Our initial meeting with the client included their chosen contractor while we were performing a paid-for estimate writing service for one of our accounts that is related to the client by contract in a business matter.The client spoke to us various times over the course of a few weeks before the client contacted our firm to express their dissatisfaction with their existing contractor, then ask if we could take on the large and complex project. The client reviewed and signed our contract with the work scope of repairing a specific and limited portion of the property using as close to existing matching specification building materials as reasonably possible.
  
  We have reached out to the client in a friendly manner several times since completing the agreed work scope with efforts to help better service the client by then engaging in the repair of issues outside of our agreed work scope, at their request. We have credited money in the form of a check payment to refund money greater than we were paid to the client for work product performed by the clients own chosen contractor. Over the course of the project, we have provided the client with a diligence to service without time or monetary concern. Attached are comparative photos of before and after work.
  
  We included in the photos a pre-existing kitchen ceiling stain that has resurfaced since the painting work performed by our team was completed. When the ceiling stain was reported to our team by the client, we inspected the roof, which we installed, and found no places water could have penetrated the roof. Following our inspection an independent third-party engineer inspected the roof and found no concern for a roof problem.
  
  We received a letter from the clients previous contractor,who had been inspecting our work throughout the completion of our work scope,which included a list of what the previous contractor thought was wrong with the roof. We included photos of the non-existent chimney cricket. We included photos of what building materials were pre-existing the repair on the roof ridge and of what is there currently. We included photos of us mirroring the new material installation location as the previous contractor had. The pre-existing ridge cap didnt cover more than 2.5 over the ridge, the same roofer who installed it is the previous contractor stated we are not covering a 4 drop over the ridge when we are covering closer to 6 of coverage. The roof has been installed for more than a year with no leaks.
  
  The outside walkways and staircase were floating pavers and thinly poured cement walkways with no form or shape. We replaced them using new pavers with metal border and filled with river rock to be highly visible contrast.
  
  We are compassionate to what the client is going through in their life. We are saddened that the client became unsatisfied with the services after we performed them. We have provided a service to the client and the product is both complete and functional. We fulfilled our agreed contracted and approved work scope obligation many months ago and have still made numerous efforts to meet the clients expectations. We have shown to the client on multiple occasions that we have completed the approved work scope, and the client is of the opinion that we owe them more than what they paid for, but the truth is that our firm has not been paid for the services that have been completed.
  
  Photos attached.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************
  

  Customer response

  03/05/2024

   
  Complaint: 21312910
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  - BTC's response if full of inaccuracies. We are attaching a word document with BTC's response and our comments inserted using Word's comment function. 

  - BTC has failed to properly install the roof and chimney as outlined in the attached reports from two third party professional roofers, Birds Eye Roofing and The Metal Guy Roofer.  Saying that a roof isn't leaking, doesn't mean it was installed correctly. A summary of the reports is below:
  
     - Birdseye Roofing Report
       - Picture 8: Chimney pan not replaced and does not properly overlap siding
         - Page 8: Item 75 of Allstate/BTC estimate shows this was to be replaced and wasnt
         - Improper overlap is a functional issue with risk of leakage in the future
     - Picture 9: Missing flue cap and collar
         - Page 8: Item 74 of the Allstate/BTC estimate shows both flue caps were to be replaced. Neither was replaced as one is the original and the other is completely missing. This is a functional issue with risk of leakage
     - Picture 10: Heavy rust and standing water on the existing chimney pan
         - Page 8: Item 75 of Allstate/BTC estimate shows this was to be replaced and wasnt. This poses risk for leakage
     - Picture 12: Right side of chimney step flashing does not extend high enough beneath chimney siding
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage
     - Picture 13: A piece of chimney siding was improperly used as a counter to the step flashing
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage
         - NOTE: Picture 12 and 13 the two sides the chimney were both improperly done and done differently
     - Picture 14: Several courses appear unlocked to other shingles and is risk for wind uplift
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage
     - Picture 15: A proper cricket was not installed and is required by code
         - While our policy does not include the law and ordinance coverage, BTC did not ask us if we would like to bring the roof within code. The cost to implement a cricket is minimal when redoing a roof and we would have approved the small expense to reduce the risk of leakage and to get to code.
     - Picture 16: Debris behind chimney due to an missing cricket and gaps in siding are a risk for leaks
         - Sliding gaps are a functional issue with risk of leakage
     - Picture *****: Obvious areas of foot damage to newer slope | Foot damage created by excess traffic and missing insulation beneath the metal shingles | Foot damage covers the entire slope
         - Roofer estimates 75% of roof has been damaged
         - Foam inserts should have been used (as were used in previous roof)
         - Aesthetic issue by can contribute to the overall long term performance of the roof
     - Picture 23: Rusted HVAC pipe, collar, and boot should have been replaced
         - BTC did not bring this to the owner's attention. It is expected this should have been covered in the Roofing (Bid Item) on Page 8, Item 73 of the Allstate/BTC estimate.
     - Picture 24: Rusted HVAC pipe, collar, and boot should have been replaced (different HVAC Pipe)
         - BTC did not bring this to the owner's attention. It is expected this should have been covered in the Roofing (Bid Item) on Page 8, Item 73 of the Allstate/BTC estimate.
     - Picture 25: The ***** metal bent in areas where it was screwed down
         - This is a functional issue with a risk of leakage
     - Picture 26: Improper ***** metal is painted galvanized and is dissimilar to the aluminum shingles
         - This is an aesthetic issue as when it ******** and rusts it will create rust streaks down the shakes.
     - Picture 27: ***** metal was improperly pitched, attached, and bent during installation
         - Should have used pre-made ***** metal. This is an aesthetic issue.
     - Picture 28 - 29: Older left elevation slope was used for access | Foot damage can be seen from the eave to the top of the *****
         - Extensive foot traffic impacted the old slope of the roof.  Instead of accessing the roof from the Chimney side, BTC/Roofers used this access unnecessarily impacting the old slope of roof. 
         - While extensive foot traffic has impacted the old slope, you can see the foot traffic had less impact as foam inserts were used.
  
  Metal Roof Guy Report
     - Item 1: Starter shingles were not cut and installed correctly
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage. This is also an aesthetic issue.
     - Item 2: ***** trim and ***** caps were not installed properly and have started coming loose.
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage. This is also an aesthetic issue.
     - Item 3: Chimney flashing and cedar siding were not installed properly. There are shingles on the side of the chimney that are not locked together. These are weak points that can allow wind to get under the shingles and cause the roof above it to be damaged from gusts of wind.
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage. This is also an aesthetic issue.
     - Item 4: The chimney should have a cricket built behind it.
         - While our policy does not include the law and ordinance coverage, BTC did not ask us if we would like to bring the roof within code. The cost to implement a cricket is minimal when redoing a roof and we would have approved the small expense to reduce the risk of leakage and to get to code.
     - Item 5: ***** metal and ridge metal were made out of galvanized metal and painted to match. Both should be made out of Aluminum coil from the manufacturer. ********** and Aluminum dont go together.
         - This is an aesthetic issue as when it ******** and rusts it will create rust streaks down the shakes.
     - Item 6: There should be foam inserts under the rustic shingles to add insulation and make the shingles more walkable.
         - Roofer estimates 75% of roof has been damaged
         - Foam inserts should have been used (as were used in previous roof in high traffic areas, despite BTC saying they were not)
     - Item 7: The pattern in which the starters were cut is incorrect.
         - This is a functional issue with risk of leakage and an aesthetic issue.
     - Item 8: The lip around the chimney cap should be 4 inches down.
         - Page 8: Item 75 of Allstate/BTC estimate shows this was to be replaced and wasnt. Improper overlap is a functional issue with risk of leakage in the future
     - Roofer Recommendations:
         - The entire section of rustic shingle and the siding that ties into the roof should be removed and replaced.
         - Foam inserts should be installed under the rustic shingles.
         - All the trim should be factory-made.
         - Ridge flashing should be made on-site, from coil metal from the manufacturer's classic products.
         - There should be a cricket built behind the chimney per code
         - NOTE: Homeowner agrees with these recommendations

  - BTC, while stating in their response they have completed the work, has not completed the work. There are several items remaining on the exterior they must resolve and are not to code.
  
  BTC knows all of the above and they didn't speak to any of it in their response to BBB.   In a separate email to us, they offered to pay us $20K to be done with the project (which they didn't share with BBB). We reject that offer as repairing the roof and completing the work exceeds that amount. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

  

  Business response

  04/26/2024

  There have been no issues with ******** approving and paying related costs to this claim. There have been no additional costs related to the claim submitted to ********. The items in the *** complaint are matters related to the insured and the contractor chosen by the insured. These do not appear to be issues related to coverage or payment. These do not appear to be items related to insurance at all.

  The engineer report states that there was no evidence of leaking from the new roof and that no leaking was observed in the Living Room. The Kitchen was from pre-existing issues to the related claim. No one was brushing past this information; it is spelled out clearly in the report that there are no other observed existing leaks outside of the Kitchen, just read the entire report it takes about 7 minutes. The photos of the roof covering removal do NOT have any evidence that foam was installed under the covering. Does the previous roofer have any photos, receipts, records of any kind to help consider otherwise? Attached are 2 photos showing only felt and metal shingles.

  Without knowing what approximate financial loss will be incurred by the insured, ******** cannot be expected to know how to indemnify. It is normal and customary that during the stormy season insurance carriers, such as ********, will utilize local resources, such as local repair service providers, in efforts to best serve the insureds in a timely manner because workload increases, and carrier staff cannot visit all loss locations to directly service insureds as swiftly as carriers are normally able to. Bring The Crew is an in-business and for-profit home repair service provider local to the customers residence and they visited the loss location with the permission of the insured in efforts to provide an initial estimate for the cost of repairs seeming to be related to the loss event so that ******** could issue an initial loss payment to the customer in a timely manner. ******** was indirectly involved with Bring The Crew in the capacity to help establish initial estimated loss value with the sole purpose of putting repair money in the hands of the insured. Bring The Crew initially met with two people including the named insureds wife, ***********************, and ***********************, who was the owner and operator of Metal ************** ****************** was introduced as the customers chosen contractor. For reasons unknown to ********, The insured contacted Bring The Crew after the initial walk through of the damages and chose to hire Bring The Crew as their repair service provider. ******** did not hire Bring The Crew to perform the work, the customer selected ********************** as their chosen contractor after interviewing Bring The Crew.

   

  On September 21^st, 2023, Bring The Crew met with *********************** and her son, *************************** and walked through the progress of the project. Bring the Crew and the insured established a punch list of work corrections that would satisfy the insured, which is standard when nearing the end of a project. An agreement was made to provide the insured with written list of the agreed uncompleted punch list items from the above walkthrough and for the insured to sign off on substantial completion of the repair services so that Bring The Crew could start the process of closing out the claim with ********. On September 22^nd, 2023, the insured elected to call into ********, unknown to Bring The Crew, with various complaints about Bring The Crew. The insured provided ******** with the list of items they wanted addressed which included some interior repairs and some exterior repairs. The insured has since had control over the scope being considered outstanding by all involved parties with the insureds various consultants. ******** responded to the insureds call-in by approving the claim related repairs with-in the ***** of ******** to do so, using parties other than Bring The Crew to investigate newly claimed needed repairs for relevancy and solution as it relates to the loss event, and remains involved in the effort of satisfying the reasonable indemnity of the insured. ********s duty to pay financial loss to the insured as adjusted to the respective insurance policy has been taken seriously by ********. ******** has not received any additional information suggesting that the insured has sustained an increase in related covered financial loss currently. We are all compassionate toward the perceived plight which the Insured is being advised they are in by other contractors, but at this time ********s obligations have been fulfilled and warranty or workmanship issues would normally be handled directly with the chosen contractor. Should additional information become available, or claim related losses be incurred, then ******** stands ready to review the information and service the insureds policy.

   

  Bring The Crew stands behind our service warranty having serviced Metro-******* for 8 years without a change in business name or suit in court. The Newmans owe a balance on the job which must be satisfied prior to warranty work being considered Please see Rough Math attachment.

   

   

  Sincerely,

  

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

  

*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. ↩