I signed a contract with Done Right Roofing (DRR) for an asphalt roof together with a new 1/2” plywood deck. They damaged the new metal soffits and fascia and improperly cut some of the plywood panelling. Many nails missed the trusses and they sidestepped part of the job respecting replacement of some of the 2x4 sub fascia. When these issues were brought to their attention I was met with a blizzard of excuses followed by unfounded accusations and name calling. Despite incontestable evidence to the contrary including photos and commentary from a Home Inspector and other roofing professionals, they have declined to address the obvious shortcomings respecting their workmanship.
They claim the roof was perfectly installed and that it passed 6 detailed inspections but the only people that didn't find fault was their two DRR project managers. They said Clayton of DRR was on site during the entire installation and was in constant communication with the third party inspector to make sure it passed inspection. This is simply not true. The inspector spoke to DRR only one time for approximately 10 minutes directing them to a needed repair for some overlapping panels. The inspector has since confirmed this in writing.
The overlapping plywood over the garage was pointed out to DRR by the Home Inspector in late July prior to completion and should have been corrected straightaway. DRR covered the problem with shingles and when the cover-up was discovered maintained that the trusses were at fault. I have a letter from a Home Inspector and a letter from a Roofing Consultant stating that the plywood was incorrectly cut and that the trusses are not the issue. I have 2 quotations from other roofing companies each stating the need to properly cut the plywood to effect repairs. Interestingly, after about a month of back and forth emails and telephone conversations, DRR finally relented, did the repair and gave me a written report stating that the overlapping plywood was cut back and nailed flush. This being the same plywood that they continue to say was not overlapping.
The contract clearly stated “replace 2x4 fascia” which absolutely necessitated the removal of about 35' of continuous aluminum gutter, and an indeterminate length of metal fascia and wood fascia board. Prior to signing I was assured they would have qualified people on site to remove the above mentioned metals. They showed up without the promised metals people and, after the roof was torn apart right down to the rafters, informed me they would not be doing that part of the job and argued it wasn't required. I felt that I was being forced into an impossible situation where I could either allow them to renege on that part of the job or run the risk of delayed completion with the possibility of damage caused by bad weather. I reluctantly agreed to let them proceed without replacing the fascia.
Later when this issue came up, they had the audacity to say the replacement was a quick and easy fix generously included at no extra cost and only if needed. The contract doesn't say “if needed” nor is it classified as a generous no cost item. Considering the impossibility of getting at the sub-fascia or even the wood fascia without first removing the above mentioned metals makes this particular excuse so ludicrous it becomes laughable. It boggles my mind to try to imagine any capable estimator writing this expensive procedure into a contract and thereafter trying to say it was a generous no cost item. I have a written quotation from another roofer that was received about the same time as the DRR quotation. That roofer didn't see this as a quick and easy fix and shows the sub-fascia replacement as a separate item for a cost of $2,432.81 plus GST. I think DRR wriggled out of that part of the job and as a result I was overcharged for the remaining portion of the contract to the tune of approximately $2,500.
They removed the metal fascia and soffit at the gables and slapped it back together in a way that I believe can only be described as careless and sloppy. They claim the thickness of the decking is why things wont fit and go on to say they removed two 1/2” sheets and replaced these with a single 1/2” sheet and somehow they arrive at the conclusion that in some areas it would be out by one full inch and the metals won't go back together being an inch off.
Their math is beyond comprehension. The old decking consisted of a 3/8” layer of OSB over top a 3/8” layer of plywood which was confirmed by the Home Inspector who examined the former roof. To clarify, two 3/8” layers totalling 3/4” were replaced with a single 1/2” sheet thereby lessening the height of the roof by 1/4”. I fail to see why this is difficult to understand but as pointed out by several other professionals in the business, it's a non-issue and has no effect on how the soffit and fascia go together at the gables. They cling to the fallacy that the thickness of the new decking wont allow a proper fit but any competent roofer knows the fascia slides under the gable trim and allows for a substantial adjustment that provides anyone with a smidgen of common sense and a screwdriver to get a perfect fit.
I believe the real reason they continue to harp about the thickness of the new deck is to divert the discussion away from the actual problem. They left the metals scratched and dented. Where the fascia came in two sections they overlapped it backwards allowing water to get at the underlying wood. They didn't properly fit the soffit into the J channel, and left gaping holes where the gable meets the roof. The Home Inspector was kind enough to come by and add a couple of screws to conceal the holes where the east and west gables meet the roof but cautioned that this partial repair by no means addressed all of the installation defects. DRR go on to say “their records show this particular area of damage to be pre-existing”.
The damage was NOT pre-existing. I had new gutters fascia and soffit installed a few weeks prior to the DRR arrival and today all metals are in pristine condition except where coming into contact with DRR's so called “very experienced roofers”. They say they're not responsible for the metals but I've spoken to a roofing consultant, a home inspector, several roofing companies and a major Calgary roofing equipment supplier and they all agree that it's the roofers responsibility to restore the metals to the same condition if removal is required.
DRR say "To be able to do our job, the fascia on the gable ends had to be removed. They were re-installed correctly." They removed both the fascia and the soffit but the restoration was not done correctly and I have photos that clearly show this. That DRR's project managers passed inspection for this part of the job despite the obvious problems astounds me.
I feel I've been treated unfairly. I'm an 80 year old pensioner who is very uncomfortable about getting on the roof. I believe they were aware of this, assumed I wouldn't inspect their work and took advantage of my apprehension. I think they improved their bottom line by not bringing in the promised metals people, putting a rush on the job by pressuring me to forego the sub-fascia repair and thereafter failing to do a proper re-install at the gables. I believe I was overcharged about $2,500 as a result of them reneging on replacing the sub-fascia and I estimate spending up to another $1,000 to restore the gables thereby leaving me out of pocket for a total of about $3,500.
I no longer trust DRR and have since contacted another roofing company and arranged for them to deal with any future issues that would normally be covered under the DRR warranty.
- Approximate cost of services:
- $17,180.00
- Company Response
The summary of our response to this matter is that this roof has been inspected by 6 people at this point, 4 of them independent of DRR, and has been found to be an excellent installation that is flawless, both aesthetically and technically. From the very beginning this person has proven to be both untruthful and unreasonable, trying to get more work for free at every turn. In the end of the end this complaint was a result of us finally setting a boundary and refusing to take on liability for exterior work that we were not contracted to do.
You can read a detailed response to specific items below.
Firstly, it is totally unethical for people to leave 0 star reviews when they are sitting under the comfort of a perfect roof installation done by a company who has bent over backwards to meet unreasonable standards set by a perpetually unhappy person.
DRR has maintained its reputation as one of the most trusted roofing companies in Calgary and won Best Of HomeStars in three out of the last five years. We did that by providing great service, quickly correcting mistakes, and leaving customers happy.
We trust consumers will use good judgement in deciphering between an actual poor service experience and someone throwing a fit looking for more free work.
The customer contracted us to remove all of the current plywood on his roof and replace with ½” plywood, as clearly stated on the signed contract. At the time of removal, the customer actually had two layers of the old plywood from a previous installer. During the installation we had to temporarily remove the fascia metals at the gables in order to lift the gable itself to get the shingles and plywood from underneath. Therefore, it was not a ¼”, but EACH sheet was ½” meaning that in some areas this would equal out to one full inch. Yes, the metals won’t go back together so well, being an inch off. We made it clear to this person from the beginning that he would have to arrange further exterior work when the roof was done. He refuses to be honest about this and is trying to get us on the hook for his exteriors.
This person is untruthfully twisting two different instances of his perpetual unhappiness. In the first instance there was difficulty getting the roof deck flat due to different levels in the trusses. We were meticulous about fixing this and making sure this was acceptable to the inspector. Again, the roof did pass 6 inspections. The second instance was two weeks later, after the homeowner advised us that he had crawled around in the attic for several hours, and came back claiming that the plywood sheets were visibly overlapping. This is not true. They were not overlapping, but were slightly uneven when viewed from the inside of the attic. This does not compromise the technical or aesthetic quality of the roof and is frankly ridiculous. However, in hopes of finally leaving him a happy homeowner, we did return and change it at no cost. The contract states in black and white that 2” nails will be used, and that is what was done at the time of installation.
Originally, the contract included a small amount of fascia board wood being replaced, if needed at the time the old roof was removed. This was a quick and easy fix that was generously included at no extra cost. However, this turned out to be subfascia (NOT fascia wood) tied into the actual trusses, and did not need to be, nor could be replaced by the roofers on site. We were not contracted to do exteriors and the homeowner agreed to leave it. We had advised the homeowner from the onset that because of the decking changes in the roofing system, an exteriors person should come in afterwards to tighten up the exteriors. Our records show this particular area of damage to be pre-existing. We happily would have come to fix it as a courtesy to the customer in most cases. However, considering the relentless, untruthful, and malicious nature of this person’s claims, it was necessary to finally say no to more free work.
Very experienced roofers performed a meticulous job installing this person’s roof. This is evidenced by the fact that the roof passed multiple detailed inspections by 2 Project Managers, an independent inspector hired by the homeowner, the homeowner themselves, and two other roofing companies. This roof is perfectly installed, both aesthetically and technically.
In Summary:
Sometimes in business mistakes happen and all we can do is apologize and make it right. This is not that situation. The person who wrote this has enjoyed a perfect roof installation that has been inspected by 6 people! This person has posted an untruthful act of defamation that is harmful to our 15 years of excellent service. This was done as a punishment to us for not taking on liability for his exteriors that we were not contracted to do. We trust intelligent people to be able to use good judgment in the context of our entire reputation as to the validity of these claims.