ComplaintsforRoof Right, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  09/25/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I requested they replace damaged shingles, fix a ridge vent and drip edge damage from a storm. They claim the estimate was only for half the drip edge and reads as follows, "- Roof Right to replace the damaged shingles along of the right front rake of the garage including the Drip Edge and replace the damaged shingle caps that is on the right side of the ridge vent of the garage." I disagree that this is clear and means just half the drip edge should be replaced. The entire drip edge was damaged and I requested the entire drip edge be replaced. The salesman acknowledged he did not see the damage on the drip edge. I paid 1100$ for the 3 repairs above. When I contacted Roof Right to correct the other half they wanted another 600$ to come out and finish the job. It is the second time I have requested they do a job and they half did it and wanted more money.

  

  Business response

  09/27/2023

  Roof Right’s goal is to always be as detailed as possible in an effort to set the correct expectations, avoid miscommunication, and deliver a positive experience for our clients.
  
  In the past on separate occasions, Roof Right replaced this customer’s roof and gutters.  Recently, Roof Right was contacted on August 14th and performed an inspection on August 24th for damage caused by a fallen tree.  The homeowner's insurance company or another contractor had outlined the damage in chalk which were confined to the front right slope of the garage roof and the right gable wall of the garage itself. There was no indication by the customer, customer's insurance company, or other contractor that had chalked the front slope, that the rear slope of the garage had damaged drip edge and we did not see it nor include it in the details of our scope or pricing. 
  
  At the request of the homeowner, multiple quotes were provided including repairing all damaged areas marked by the insurance company, complete siding replacement as well as just repairing the roof and drip edge on the front right gable.
  
  Roof Right was very specific as to the scope of work.  The homeowner referenced our contract in his complaint which stated "- Roof Right to replace the damaged shingles along of the right front rake of the garage including the Drip Edge and replace the damaged shingle caps that is on the right side of the ridge vent of the garage." Roof Right completed the contract in its entirety and is consistent with the work outlined by Roof Right’s contract. The entire front slope of drip edge-not half was replaced and no work to the rear of the garage was performed.  The homeowner inquired about the drip edge on the back slope.  We informed him that was not brought up or included in the scope of work and we provided him with a separate repair estimate to consider.
  
  Regrettably, the customer wrote a negative review on Google and has now filed a complaint with the Better Business Buruea in an effort to try and get additional work done at no additional cost or at the very least cause damage to our reputation. The homeowner never contacted a member of management that potentially could have amicably resolved his concerns.  
  
  Roof Right Inc has performed the full scope of work detailed in our contract and the customer paid in full and we feel the matter should be closed.

• Initial Complaint

  05/30/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We contracted with Roof Right on 10/20/21 to install a new roof for $15,626.33. From the time the Subcontractor, Completed Exterior Services LLC, started the roof replacement on 11/03/21, we contacted the Project Mgr, Rick F*****, with concerns of how the roof was being installed on the day of installation. He was onsite for approx 15 mins at the start of the job but never returned even after we started voicing concerns. The Subcontractor's poor workmanship resulted in (partial list): * Cut the siding in multiple places; cut/dented aluminum on gable & other places * Punched holes through the sheathing on the garage & main roof, and front dormer * Used damaged shingles; broken corners, no grit, fiberglass showing; not sealing * Cut the ice and shield installed on the roof; no measuring to obtain a straight line * First row of shingles are not straight; partially covering the rain spout * Used damaged drip edge; nailed through drip edge in many places; face nailed shingles * Damaged rain spouting; butchered cut job on shingles installed around rain spout * Discoloration of the shingles (brown shingles now white) Roof Right opened a warranty claim with**************. We believe it was the intent of Roof Right to get************** to pay for the roof replacement. They have stated in two letters they are not. In our opinion, the use of damaged shingles & poor workmanship is not their responsibility. In a letter dated 05/19/22 from Roof Right, they are demanding the bal due per our contract less a $2,000 settlement & stated in the letter that most of our issues are with************** & to deal directly with them. We disagree with their statement & will not accept the settlement offer. The majority of our issues are due to poor workmanship. The width of our siding doesn't match what is made today. We cannot fix the areas that are cut requiring the whole home to be resided at a cost over $20K not taking into consideration the remaining damage that needs to be fixed.

  

  Business response

  07/05/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2022/06/07) */ Response To ******** Complaint: Roof Right, Inc. stands behind the work we performed on the ******** project. As our attached settlement offer to Mr. ******** makes clear, we bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. ********'s claims, which are undeniable manufacturer related. Copies of the ************* responses to the claims filed by Roof Right Inc. on behalf of the home-owners (three samples obtained with two claims filed due to manufacturer losing the first set of samples), and photographs supporting our position, are attached for consideration. Response to poor workmanship claims: Cut siding in multiple places: The only areas of siding cut were done to properly install a "kick-out" flashing which is required by Maryland Building Code. Cut/Dented aluminum on gable & other places: There are two areas where the aluminum on the gable had to be modified in order to replace the flashing. Our normal process is to install the flashing behind the fascia board on the gable so that the metal does not have to be modified, however, Mr. ******** requested that we not install the flashing behind the fascia board but rather behind the metal, and the metal had to be modified. The two pieces of fascia metal were part of our consideration in the settlement offer, which only need replaced for aesthetic purposes. Punched holes through the sheathing & main roof, and front dormer: These areas of sheathing are near the ridge line which is cut open for ventilation. A few areas were opened further "punched" out to allow for safety ropes and lines to be tied around the trusses. There is no structural damage to the sheathing or risk of shingles blowing off do to this. This is also only visible from the inside of the unfinished attic. Used damaged shingles; broken corners, no grit, fiberglass showing, not sealing: Upon inspection of the final roof installation there was no abnormal "damage" or wear and tear to the shingles. We informed Mr. ******** that the shingles being installed in cold temperatures would need time and warmer weather to completely seal. As of our last visit to the ******** residence there were still shingles not fully sealed, signs of discoloration, and inconsistencies in the fiberglass mat of the shingles. We assisted in obtaining samples on three separate occasions to process a warranty claim with *************, at our expense. To date, ************* has denied any defect resulting in performance. Cut the ice and shield installed on the roof: At times at edges or in the mid-field of a roof it is necessary to cut the underlayment, this does not mean that there is no underlayment, but there are vertical seams that do overlap for the proper protection. No measuring to obtain a straight line; partially covered rain spout: The shingles are installed very straight, there are inconsistencies in the truss tails that make the shingles appear to have been installed crooked but this is not the case. The gutter conforms to the framing where a chalk line keeps the top of the shingle straight which will show the imperfections in the framing which will also make the shingles cover more or less of the gutter attached to the framing. Used damaged drip edge; nailed through drip edge in many places: No damaged drip edge was installed. There were some nails installed through the top of the drip edge that missed the sheathing, the nails were removed, and there are a few "visible" nail holes from the underside of the roof. The five pieces of drip edge were part of our consideration in the settlement offer, which also only need replaced for aesthetic purposes. Discoloration of the shingles (brown shingles now white): This is strictly a manufacturer concern, to which we again as stated above, pulled shingle samples on three separate occasions, at our expense, and submitted them to *************. Consumer Response /* (3000, 9, 2022/06/11) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We do not feel that Roof Right has gone to any great length to address and fix any of our issues with the installation of our roof. Per a text on 11/17/21, Roof Right made the decision to file a claim with ************* due to the high percentage of damaged shingles installed on the roof. In that text it was stated they were going to wait for feedback from ************* before addressing any of our concerns including the siding and aluminum damages. Our only interaction with Roof Right following the installation of the roof was with their Project Manager. It was not until we requested the onsite meeting did we meet and have our first discussion with the GM, Craig M***, over four months after the roof was installed. We were continually told by the project manager that our concerns would be taken care of, and they have done nothing but offer us $2,000 off the contracted roof price. This offer would not cover the materials and labor required to fix the issues we have with their roof installation. They are not standing behind their workmanship and making the repairs to our home as was stated would be done. Today, they are back peddling and making the statement that our claims are 100% manufacturer related. We totally disagree. We have visible proof of poor workmanship that has nothing to do with any manufacturer defect that we want fixed. No discussion transpired with us on how the flashing was to be installed. When we questioned Mr. M*** about replacing our siding and aluminum at the 03/29/22 onsite meeting, he responded that it was Maryland Building code to install the flashing. Our response was that no code states that you have to cut siding in order to install flashing. Ridge venting would require a max of 1" to be cut on either side of the ridge. The holes in our sheathing are much larger than that. In two places where there are large holes, there is no ridge vent. It is not acceptable that they took the liberty to punch holes in the roof sheathing to secure safety ropes. They should have used safety harness anchors that are nailed to the roof truss. Where the holes are, the shingles are not secure as they are not nailed to any plywood. Not acceptable. There were no holes in the sheathing prior to their roof installation, and should not have been after the roof was installed with the exception of the ridge vent opening. There are a large number of damaged shingles installed on the roof. The project manager stated that they had to install the product delivered and would deal with replacing the damaged shingles later. That never happened as it appears they see this as a manufacturer defect, and are deflecting this to the warranty claim with *************. We disagree. If there is overlap on the ice and water shield installation, we can accept that. It was stated to us by the Roof Right sales rep that per Maryland Building code our home would require two rows of ice and water shield due to the overhang to be inside the warmth area of the interior wall. Per the photo provided, we only see one row installed. The original 3-tab shingle installation was straight; no inconsistencies in truss tails, framing, or partially covered rain spouting. The drip edge was not installed properly and bent up in places. We have an area where the first row of shingles is 1" below the starter shingle, and it should be even with it to maintain a straight line. Not acceptable workmanship for a new roof installation. We had no holes in the any drip edge and none of it was bent up with our original roof installation. It is not acceptable to us to have any of those conditions following the new roof installation. Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2022/06/24) */ Our offer is based on our review of the work performed and claims made. We do not believe any amount should have been discounted because we stand behind our work on the project. There are no formal quotes provided from any reputable third party roofing companies to rebuke that our offer would be insufficient. The fact that they disagree with our contention that the issues they face are manufacturer related does not make it so. We performed our work consistent with the building code. The means and method of the roof installation is at the discretion of Roof Right as required by applicable code. All work was performed consistent with code and we stand behind the warranty, ready and willing to address the same. However, the ********s cannot use this issue to essentially get free home improvement services at the expense of Roof Right. Consumer Response /* (4200, 15, 2022/06/26) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Neither free home improvement services nor a discount from the contract price is what we are seeking. What we do expect from Roof Right is for them to correct the issues we have outlined with their roof installation.

*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. ↩