ComplaintsforWhite Castle Roofing

• Initial Complaint

  02/15/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  White Castle Roofing replaced the roof on my residence in the fall of 2022. The first time we had cold temperatures after that, in the winter of 2022, we noticed stains on our ceilings. A representative of White Castle made an inspection and advised he felt the problem resulted from a new underlayment being used that did not allow air in our attic to escape, resulting in condensation. He had an "attic ventilation" expert contact us, and when an inspection was made we were advised that our attic insulation was wet and needed to be replaced and the attic treated for mold. At the same time we were advised regarding the attic insulation, White Castle informed us that too much ridge vent had been installed and they wished to remove it and replace it with whirlybird turbine roof vents. They also denied responsibility for the insulation and mold treatment. I have since learned that White Castle used a synthetic underlayment on the deck of our roof and that the manufacturer of this product gives specific installation instructions that state, among other things, that it is to be used only if there is adequate ventilation in the attic. There obviously was not adequate ventilation for the underlayment that was used, and that was the cause of the attic condensation and necessity to replace the insulation and treat the attic for mold. White Castle representatives, rather than accept responsibility for their mistakes, attempts to blame someone else for the problems which, by the way, occurred again this January and are a further indication that the attic ventilation remains inadequate for the impermeable synthetic underlayment used without first evaluating the attic ventilation. Now they say they want to improve the ventilation, but at our expense.

  

  Business response

  03/18/2024

  White Castle Roofing was originally contracted to replace the roof for *** **** *in 2022. During the following winter the customer called in with some small condensation stains on his ceiling. We sent out a service rep who inspected the attic intake and exhaust ventilation and determined that the most likely problem was insufficient exhaust ventilation at the highest peak. We came to this conclusion because we could see a perforated soffit vents along with chutes to let air into the attic space. Thinking the soffits were open, White Castle opted to install turbine vents at the highest peak of the roof to get as much attic exhaust as possible. We did this at no cost to the customer. Unfortunately, this did not fix the customers issues which appeared again the following winter. Since we knew there was more than enough exhaust ventilation on the home, we started to suspect his soffit vents were not properly installed. This led us to bend a piece of his wrapped soffit down to look inside of it. We found that under the soffit wrap the wood was not cut out. This hidden problem was and has always been the core issue. It is not common practice or within reason for White Castle to tear off a homeowner's soffit vents to determine that they are working properly. If White Castle had installed a vent on the roof without cutting a hole in the plywood first, we would take responsibility for that error. Similarly, whoever installed the customers soffit wrap in the past is responsible for his air flow problems now.

  

  Business response

  03/21/2024

  White Castle will not pay any further costs associated with the air flow issue since it was not caused by our work. As the customer stated, when we perceived that this was our issue, we already paid him $1,000 for damages and we changed out the venting that we suspected was the issue for free (cost us $650). As we now know the condensation was caused by the soffit not being open and not our vents, or any other issue created by us. Therefore, we don't see how a reasonable person would determine that White Castle owes any further money in this situation. It is unfortunate that whoever installed the customers soffit vents failed so miserably for the customer, but to transfer their rightful punishment to White Castle makes no logical sense. 

  Customer response

  03/21/2024

  I have now been in touch with a management person from the contractor who installed the soffit on my home some ten years ago, and we discussed the issues I have had with condensation in the attic since the roof was replaced in the fall of 2022.  I was informed that, while the manner in which the perforated vinyl soffit was installed may not be considered appropriate by some, it is not an unusual practice within the industry.  The soffit was placed over the plywood soffit; however, the screens that covered the vent holes in the plywood were removed so that the eight inch by 16 inch holes were open to the attic, and I know from being present when portions of the plywood were recently removed that there were a sufficient number of vent holes in the plywood.  The contractor who installed the vinyl soffit informed me that the installation procedure they used did not block intake ventilation to the attic because the plywood vent holes were completely open and the perforations in the vinyl allowed enough intake so that there was, in fact,  no problem with condensation for the ten years following this installation or up until the roof was replaced in the fall of 2022.  I was advised that the perforated vinyl allowed the intake of air not only where the vent holes were present in the plywood, but throughout the entire surface of the soffit because of the way it is configured.

  Once again, I believe this shows that White Castle's attempt to blame someone else has failed.   I frankly do not care whether you give this information to White Castle, but I thought you should be advised.
  

*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. ↩