Atlanta roofing company, homeowner haggle over decking
In the middle
COMPLAINT: Josh Hobbs, Atlanta
"I hired Findlay Roofing to replace my roof. The first roofer walked off the job. I got a nail in my tire because they failed to pick up all the nails in my driveway. This is just icing on the cake. They didn't give me an estimate for sheathing that needed replaced before they did the work. They're trying to charge me an extra $2,000 for this, which I never agreed to.
Swim for Less
Failed to respond to Kathryn Burns' complaint about a pool liner installation she says was shoddy. Second month in the box.
Gustavo Landscaping LLC
Didn't respond to Joel Rubenstein's complaint that the company failed to honor a warranty on shrubs they planted. Second month in the box.
Didn't address Bill Garrett's request for a refund after the company charged him for unsuccessful data retrieval. Second month in the box.
Bank of America
[Jacksonville Loan Center]
Didn't respond to Dawn Stephen's request for travel reimbursement after what she says was a mistake that cost her a home purchase. Second month in the box.
"I've asked them to meet me in the middle on this. They've refused to show me the receipts for the roof decking. The original proposal to replace my roof (after a $400 coupon) was $3,689. The decking was an additional $2,000, bringing the total to $5,689. I've offered to pay them $5,000, which I think is very fair considering I never agreed to the $2,000 to begin with. I do understand some of the decking did need to be replaced."
DESIRED RESOLUTION: "I want the company to accept a $5,000 payment."
RESPONSE: Marcella Strech, manager, Findlay Roofing
"Nearly 80 percent of our business is generated from customer referrals, so we do everything we can to satisfy customers. The first roofer left because the customer felt it was reasonable for us to carry roof debris to a dumpster across a busy street and wouldn't let the crew park in his driveway. This was dangerous and the crew chose not to begin work.The member and I agreed to start the next day with the dumpster in the yard and the crew in the driveway.
"The estimate given and the contract clearly stated that the only cost not included in the price was the replacement of any damaged decking, because we couldn't see it until the shingles were off. We left a message with the owner about $600 worth of damaged decking. The customer called back and accused us of lying, even though we showed him pictures to prove it the next day.
"To help him with the cost, we gave a cash discount and money off the decking. Unfortunately, replacing decking is not an optional thing and must be done. The owner then refused to pay even the discounted amount and was belligerent toward our staff. At that time, we enumerated the steps that would ensue for non-payment. As for the nail, we make every effort to clean up and will readily pay the cost of repair."
COMPLAINT: Jim O'Rourke, Marietta, Ga.
"John Andrews Hardwood Flooring refinished my floors. When they quoted the job, they said they'd sand the corners by hand and put two coats of polyurethane down. They trapped bristles, debris and a plastic jewel underneath the floor coat. They said this was their mistake and they'd send out a better crew of workers.
"The second time, they used polyurethane with a tint of amber - it was supposed to be clear - and the debris is still there. This poor process left a cloudy finish. A second floor professional evaluated the job and told me it'll have to be re-sanded. I requested a refund so I can pay a different company to complete the job, but they refused.
"They offered me a credit toward redoing the floor themselves, but this will cost me an additional $1,500 to $2,000. I've obtained quotes from other companies that are less. Another reason I don't want to use John Andrews again is their poor record of responding to my problems in a timely manner."
DESIRED RESOLUTION: "I'd like a 100 percent cash refund."
RESPONSE: Matt Goff, vice president, John Andrews Hardwood Flooring
"I believe the information given by the member is incomplete and misleading. The original quote and estimate provided the customer with two different options: sanding the floors or cleaning and re-coating the floors. The cleaning/re-coating option is a less extensive process; therefore, it's significantly less expensive.
"The quote also included a warning that various cleaners and other products were previously used on the floors that could cause adhesion issues with the new finish. There was some debris trapped underneath the first coat of polyurethane. We addressed this issue by re-sanding the floors and applying new polyurethane. In areas, it seems as if the polyurethane is having trouble adhering.
"Our company did follow manufacturer procedures to help ensure the best conditions. The customer chose a less expensive, riskier option and is now blaming our company for his displeasure. The issues are being brought to light as a ploy by the customer to relieve himself of the burden of his informed decision."