BBB Business Review

What is a BBB Business Review?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 05/20/2013

Florida Universal Roofing, Inc.

Phone: (407) 648-8009Fax: (407) 648-1070

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Customer Complaints Summary

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 0 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Problems with Product / Service2
Advertising / Sales Issues0
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints2

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (2)
08/15/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

This company failed us by not repairing our roof the way it was suppose to be fixed. They told us the repair in the roof would last 2 yrs but did not.
Our roof was partially damaged by a tree branch. Our home insurance travelers were called in and inspected the damaged area. We had water leak inside two rooms and half the 2nd celar we have and the rug would get soaked also due to the water leakage. Travelers then contacted florida universal roofing. Someone came out looked at the damaged area and we agreed that only a partial roofing was to be done as to where the leak area was. They did the job on Feb XX XXXX, we gave a check of $1,482.00 for the partial roofing work on our roof. Mr ******* ***** assured us that the work they did **** last 2 yrs time. After this we had the 2 rooms repainted and the 2nd celar too, we were very happy because we believed the work was done and there was to be no more water leak or damage to the inside home especially the rooms. We had the rooms repainted also. Then in memorial day in May 26 2013 (monday) it rained heavily and to our surprise the rooms started leaking like before in the same areas where it was patched up by the roofing company. Other than that our closet clothes and shoes got wet due to the water leakage. Only after 3 months it was leaking again. We called florida universal roofing but they kept putting excuses time after time. They eventually sent a man who works for them who took measurements and left. Then again we waited but no respond from florida universal roofing, so we called and they refuse to do anything because according to them the damage had extended and they can't do anything. We really just can't believe that they can be so unprofessional in this area, they refuse to return our calls and keep the money we put in for the repairs for at least a 2 yrs time. Our roof still leaks every time it rains and the paint done is also getting discolored once again. This is not fair or right to do to customers, leaving us hanging this way. If nothing is done about this we have to again put in more money to do the job they did over again that only lasted 3 months time, we didn't pay so much money to only patch the damaged roof up for only 3 months. This is wrong from their part. We are very unhappy with there actions and work. If it was such a professional job it would not have leaked again like before in the same areas where they worked on. This is amazing.

Desired Settlement
We want our roof fixed because we payed a total of $1,482.00 for at least a two year period time not for only a 3 months time. If they don't want to fix it we want a full refund to get some other company to re fix it correctly as it should be. The two yr period would of at least gave us some time to safe enough money to get a full new roofing done within that time period.

Business Response
June 11, 2014
Consumer Affairs Representative
BBB of Central Florida
1600 South Grant Street
Longwood, FL XXXXX
RE: Complaint Case # XXXXXXXX
Consumer: ***** *****
We are in receipt of the Complaint filed by Mr. ***** *****. Our response is
as follows:
This repair was a referral from Quality First Builders, LLC, following up on
an insurance claim for damage due to the flat roof being struck by a tree limb.
There was no evidence of any tree branch damage to the roof system after removal
of the tarp covering the flat roof as stated by the Homeowner. The roof was leaking
due to the excessive age of the tar and gravel roof system, splits and voids in the
roof system, and nails backing out of the plank wood roof decking.
When the repair was completed on February 28, 2014, the repair area
increased more than three-fold from the specified repair area due to the roof being
in such poor condition. We explained to Mr. & Mrs. ***** what was done, we
discussed the roof's condition, and showed photographs to them of what was
uncovered when the repair was commenced. In fact, even though our Proposal
Contract clearly states that any change in the work scope due to unknown
conditions is billable to the property owner and the repair increased by 300%, the
Homeowner was not charged for the additional costs incurred.
I am including the signed Proposal Contract, which shows this was a nonwarrantable
repair. We have recently checked with Orange County Public Records,
which shows the home was built in 1960, and there is no indication that the tar and

BBB of Central Florida
Complaint Case #XXXXXXXX
Consumer: ***** *****
June 11, 2014
gravel flat roof on the home has ever been replaced, as no permits for any roof replacement is on record. This puts the roof at 54 years of age.
The roof area now leaking is further up the roof slope to the South of the back bedroom where the previous repair was completed. The leak (as noted on our site visit on May 30, 2014) indicated it is a new leak in the dining room area of the home which is in close proximity to the back Northeast bedroom repair, but not related to it. This is a completely different leak in a roof that is simply failing due to age.
******* *****

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We moved into this house on 1995 the whole roof had just been redone as repaired by the owner who sold us the house. Then again half the front roof was redone in 2004 by another roof company that redid that side of the roof due to hurricane charlie and they did it's job to our fullest satisfaction. Until this day that front side of the roof remains in great condition. It does not matter weather it was a tree branch or limb to us they did not do a good professional job on the partial roofing and are now finding more excuses not to correct their own work. We believe the roofing was done with cheap material and this is why only after only 3 months the roof restarted leaking in the same areas as to where they worked on previously. Mr. **** told us it would last at least 2 yrs time giving us time enough as we had mention before to save enough money to do the whole roof sometime next year. He said he would give us a letter to the warranty but never did because he knew it was not going to hold that long. We are not satisfied and **** find other ways to have this situation corrected. It is not fair to us to be taken advantage of as lied too. We are not the first to complain about their work nor **** be the last.

Final Business Response
July 1, 2014
Consumer Affairs Representative
BBB of Central Florida
1600 South Grant Street
Longwood, FL XXXXX
REI Complaint Case # XXXXXXXX
Consumerl ***** *****
This is in response to Mr. *****'s June 18, 2014 response.
Again, I would like to reiterate that the repair completed over the back
bedroom was not warrantied as stated by the Home Owner in the initial complaint
report and his follow up response.
This fact is varied by the Proposal Contract paperwork the Home Owner,
Mr. *****, signed with our company. Mr. ***** was never told the repairs would
last two (2) years. We are not in the business of issuing warranties on entire
existing roof systems when only a small portion is addressed in the repair. This
makes no logical sense in the terms of business liability, and given the age and
condition of the existing roof system is unrealistic.
We have responded to the OWner's leak report promptly when called in late
May, and found the leaks to be on the same at roof containing the repair, but not
in the repair area. These leaks are from previously repaired sections of the at roof.
It is unfortunate the *****'s roof system is leaking, but the only true fix (one
where a warranty would be issued) is to replace the entire upper roof section. Mr.
***** states in is own words "that the roof was replaced by the previous owner who
sold us the house". I find this hard to believe given the condition of the upper roof
section and the fact that there is no re-roof permit on record with the Orange
County Building Department, which is required for a replacement.

He also states that in 2004 the lower flat roof section was replaced it its
entirety and is not an issue to date. That is to be expected with a partial roof
replacement. The same cannot be expected on a dilapidated, failing roof system
where only a small section is addressed and the age of which could very well he fifty
(50+) plus years old.
I am sending more photographs showing the roof condition uncovered when
the repair area was spudded, revealing the cause for the leaks were a failing roof
system, not storm damage, tree limb damage, or any other act of God.
******* *****

Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
It is pittyfull that this roof company can be so unresolving again with more excuses. Mr. **** knows very well he told me and my husband this work they did would last up to 2 yrs. I never came across a roofing company who does give a written warranty. We really trusted them and currently we are tired of this matter and are in the process of taking further action to come to a solution to this problem. It is wrong to assure something to customers assuring the roof work would stop by their work, but did not. It only took 3 months to show its true work. I/we want to thank the BBB for their concern in this matter. Thank you kindly.

09/25/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Leak reappeared a few feet away from dormer repair Universal did. Asked for credit towards repair new leak and quote for the whole roof. Nothing!
Universal fixed a leak from two dormers. In months, the dormer leaked a few feet away. Asked why it failed again so soon and why they hadn't noticed the weakness and for credit towards 2nd leak repair. The estimate was so high, we asked for a quote for the whole roof. They were unwilling to offer a credit and have not given us an estimate for the roof.

Desired Settlement
We believe Universal should be willing to fix the new dormer leak and credit some of the cost of the first repair to fixing this leak.

Business Response
Please also see attachment.

State Certified CC-CXXXXXX
1808 Acme Street Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX
O rlando, FL 32805 Fax XXX-XXX-XXXX
To: ******* ******
Consumer Affairs Representative
Better Business Bureau of Central Florida, Inc.
1600 S. Grant Street
Longwood, FL 32750
Re: ********* & ****** ***** Residence
*** *** ******* ****
********** ** XXXXX
Florida Universal Roofing Incorporated, hereafter to be referred to as FURI, was initially contacted on April 1, 2011,
by Celebration Rental Group in regards to one reported leak at the ***** Residence located at the address located
above. A FURI roof technician was set up with an appointment to investigate the source of the leak on April 4,
The investigation of this leak occurred in such a way that the FURI technician inspected the interior of the home so
that a general correlative area of the roof assembly could be isolated for inspection. After the area of the leak was
determined, and after the general area of the roof that was to be inspected was defined, the technician set up his
ladder, and ascended to the second story roof assembly and began to investigate the second story front facing roof
slope and the right-most of three dormers that are situated in a fashion such that their respective ridge lines are
perpendicular to the main ridge line of the second story roof assembly.
When a secondary ridge line exists in a manner that is perpendicular to the primary ridge line of a roof assembly,
two roof valleys will ineluctably be created, and they will extend from the secondary ridge line down to the two
eaves that are correlative to this secondary ridge. These two eaves will be assembled of a metallic eaves drip or drip
edge flashing, wooden fascia, and possibly wooden sub-fascia. The eave will have a vertical length extending from
the bottom edge of the bottommost shingle to the bottom edge of the fascia board, and this length will typically be
no less than six (6) inches (although it may be much larger). It will have a width of approximately four inches. This
six by four inch width of combined boards and metallic flashing will intersect the main, perpendicular roof slope in
such a way that a hole will unavoidably be formed by this intersection between the fascia of the eave and the roof
slope that is perpendicular to it. This intersection may have a notch cut into the wooden structure in the support
frame beneath this area of the roof that carpenters typically refer to as a 'birdsmouth cut'. As this birdsmouth cut in
the wooden frame support will leave a hole in the roof assembly, it may not be possible to install a shingle over it (as
shingles cannot be installed over gaps in the roof structure). A solution to this problem of the gap formed by the
intersecting elements of the roof assembly is to install what many roofers will refer to as a birdsmouth flashing.
This birdsmouth flashing will be installed directly beneath the valley that is formed by the perpendicular roof slopes,
such that the main roof slope and the subsequently perpendicular fascia board and ultimately the gap that integrally
exists between them will all be covered by this L-shaped section of metal.
Beneath the eaves of the secondary ridge lines there will be walls that intersect the roof line in a way that is similar
to the birdsmouth intersection. The walls will typically have a siding composed of lapped boards, brick, stone, or
stucco; these will typically be installed over a structural wooden frame and a wall sheathing. Between the wall
sheathing and the stucco (as happens to be the case in this roof assembly), a section of L-flashing will be installed.
This L-flashing will also be installed in-between the roof sheathing and the shingles. Therefore an L-shaped section
of metal will be installed so that it is tucked beneath the siding in the wall and beneath the shingles of the roof. The
metal will be immured and as such it will be invisible to the view of anyone standing on the roof, and for that matter,
of anyone positioned within the attic. And even though this metal is obscured and cannot be examined by visual
means, it is an extremely important element in a roof assembly. This L-shaped flashing (referred to as L-flashing or
roof-to-wall transition flashing) is that which prevents water from running into that gap found where the shingles of
the roof meet the siding of the wall. This metal tends to be formed of galvanized steel, and as such, it is susceptible
to corrosion and deteriorative oxidation. If this L-flashing is exposed to excessive amounts of water it will
deteriorate beyond the point of serviceability. Even the smallest hole in this metal can prove to be extremely
problematic. In this way it compares to a tooth; as a hole in it that is no larger than a cavity can cause much pain
and damage, and many times a large cost of correction is involved in its repair.
The front facing second story roof assembly has three (3) dormers; as such there are three (3) perpendicular ridge
lines to the primary ridge line and therefore there are six (6) eaves and six (6) valleys that are formed by these three
dormers. The first reported leak appeared to be coming from the dormer, that if viewed from the street, would be the
rightmost dormer of the second story roof assembly. This rightmost dormer was inspected by our technician. The
first thing that was noted was that this dormer had been the subject of a previous repair attempt. Black asphalt was
seen to have been spread into the roof-to-wall transition, as if it was assumed that the roof-to-wall flashing had not
been functioning properly by the person that applied this asphalt to the dormer. Of course this is no way to repair
problematic flashing, and so it was assumed further that the person performing 'repairs' to this roof was not a
professional roof installer, and that they were blindly attempting to fix a problem, without actually knowing what the
problem was.
On the left side of this dormer, our technician found a void in the stucco. The void existed in such a way that you
could see the wall flashing through the void in the stucco. The void did exist above the previously installed
reparative smear of asphalt. A water hose was brought up to the second story roof assembly, and it was applied to
this void in the stucco. After spraying the void in the stucco, the technician brought a step ladder into the home and
climbed into the attic to inspect this area of the dormer. A wet spot in the interior attic space of the dormer was
found to be correlative to the hole in the stucco. This hole in the stucco, therefore, was confirmed to be problematic,
and a proposal was sent from FURI to *********** ****** ***** addressing this void in the stucco. This proposal
was for the amount of $312.00. This proposal was not accepted by the homeowner. It was made known to us that
the homeowner was having the builder of the home perform the roof repair. We do offer free estimates, but
nonetheless, it should be now be made known that a cost of four (4) man-hours and a were incurred by our
investigation of this roof leak. Our service work orders bill at a rate of $65.00 per man hour. As such, our
investment resulted in providing this homeowner with information that was assumedly transferred to the builder, so
that the builder may have a better chance of correcting that which they had attempted to correct previous to our visit
to this home. In this way the home owners were able to use our investment of $260 to their advantage. This was
made evident to us in October of 2012.
To reiterate: a leak was reported, we responded by setting up an appointment to investigate the leak; the leak was
inspected first by an inspection of the interior of the home, then by an inspection of the roof, when a possible cause
of the leak was found (in the form of problematic stucco) a water test was performed; after the water test, an
inspection of the attic was performed; wet wood was discovered in the attic after the water test, as such the void in
the stucco was confirmed as an active leak; a proposal was provided addressing our findings; the proposal was not
accepted, as the home owner provided our information to the builder so that the builder could perform repairs based
upon our findings - rather than address this leak haphazardly by applying asphalt cement around the perimeter of
the dormer as had been done previously.
On October 24, 2012, we were contacted for a second time in regards to a leak reported in the master bedroom. One
leak was in the same area as was reported previously. A second leak was reported beneath the leftmost dormer. An
investigation of the attic space provided us with evidence of two areas of deteriorated roof sheathing. When roof
sheathing is found to be in a state of deterioration, there typically is not a need to perform a water test, as
deteriorated roof sheathing must be repaired, and in the course of this repair the cause of the initial deterioration
tends to make itself known. Also, if roof sheathing is in a state of deterioration, it is obvious that at least in some
way, water is coming into contact with that deteriorated area of roof sheathing. Upon discovering these two areas of
deteriorated roof sheathing, we provided a proposal that addressed correcting the bottom left corner of the leftmost
dormer and the bottom left corner of the rightmost dormer (which was associated with the second leak reported in
October 2012). The middle dormer did not have evidence of deteriorated sheathing, and so it was not addressed in
our November 2012 proposal for roof repairs. Unlike the previously provided proposal for repairs, this proposal was
accepted, and the contract was executed in November of 2012. This proposal addressed the repair of two corners;
more specifically, it addressed the bottom left corner of the leftmost dormer and the bottom left corner of the
rightmost dormer. This proposal included the cutting and removing of a section of stucco correlative to both corners
that were to be repaired. The stucco needed to be removed so that the L-flashing could also be removed. New Lflashing
was to be installed over the top of newly installed modified bitumen roof membrane which was to be
installed as reinforcement to the metallic L-flashing. It should be kept in mind that this repair scope was created
based upon information available to us through our diagnostic modalities. This is to say that our repair scope is
limited to what we can see. We investigated these issues from the roof top as well as from the attic space. We could
see the area of the problem, but we could not see further into the problem without the actual removal of shingles
from the roof assembly. Shingles, however, are never removed during a diagnostic involving a free estimate for roof
repairs. Our findings, based on our perception of the problematic areas of the roof assembly, were submitted as part
of this proposal. As this proposal was accepted, it is implied that what we found to be problematic was also
accepted as reasonable and worthy of the process outlined as the repair work-scope.
During the process of this repair to the problematic corners of the rightmost and leftmost dormers' lower left hand
corners, we removed shingles that were obscuring the top surface of the horizontal flange of the roof-to-wall Lflashing.
When this flashing was exposed by the removal of these shingles we were able to see that the L-flashing
had corroded to such an extent that there were large gapping holes throughout the horizontal length of the flashing
such that holes were found in it extending from the left corners (which were the initial subject of our proposal and
which were located above the deteriorated roof sheathing) approximately five (5) linear feet away to the right
corners (which were not addressed in our proposals as their was no visual evidence of their being problematic). As
such our work-scope had grown, as this entire length of flashing would need to be replaced on both dormers, due to
the fact that both sections of horizontally run 'apron' flashing (parallel to the eaves of the main roof slope) were
covered with corrosion and were filled with large holes resultant of this corrosion. This removal of additional
lengths of flashing would entail the removal of an additional length of stucco such that the flashings could be
removed. As this work was deemed imperative, and as it was not addressed in our original proposal, an amount of
$90.00 was added to our invoice marked November 29, 2012 (Invoice # RXXXXXXX). This proposal also addressed
removing and replacing two (2) disparate sections of water damaged roof sheathing that were correlative to the
problematic flashing.
In summary of our second visit: we were called out a second time to investigate a persistent leak. The problem that
we had discovered with the void in the stucco at that time had been corrected (by filling the hole with caulk), and it
had also appeared that a newer layer of asphalt roofing cement had been applied to the roof-to-wall transition near
the leaky area of the rightmost dormer. Our investigation of the attic cavity revealed two disparate areas of water
damaged and deteriorated roof sheathing that were correlative to the rightmost and leftmost dormer. This damage
was found to exist on the lower lefthand corner on both dormers. A proposal was provided to replace the water
damaged roof sheathing and to remove and replace the problematic flashings. This proposal was accepted and
during the process of our repairs, we discovered that the suspected issue with the flashing was a correct diagnostic
as the flashing was corroded and full of holes, and it needed more repair that had initially been considered. This
additional repair was addressed on our invoice. A one year warranty for these two disparate areas of flashing
repair was provided with an effective date of November 28, 2012.
We received a third call in regards to the leaks in these dormers on May 6, 2013. This call was made by *****
********* with *********** ****** ****** It was related to us that it was leaking in the same area as our previous
repair. The same technician that had been out on the previous two occasions and that was involved in the previous
repair was sent out to the property to investigate along with a second technician that was to be of assistance during
the water test. A leak was reported at one of the dormers we had previously repaired, and another leak was reported
that correlated to the middle dormer, which at that time had not been inspected or repaired by us.
Upon investigating the interior of the home we set up to perform a water test such that one technician would be
placed in the attic and a second technician would be placed on the roof with a hose to spray the dormer. The
dormers were sprayed where our areas of flashing repair had occurred. We were unable to produce a leak at the
points where our repairs to the roof-to-wall flashings had been replaced. By this method of observation, we
concluded that what we had performed repairs to was sound and not allowing for any water intrusion. After
determining the soundness of our previous repairs, we began to spray other points on the dormer at the roof-to-wall
transition (and where the black tar had been applied by previous repair technicians belonging to other contractors
unknown to us). At the point where the roof-to-wall transition disappears beneath the valley created by the
intersection of the dormers' roof slopes with the main front facing roof slope of the house, we observed that water
was able to penetrate into the roof assembly. It is at this point where a birdsmouth flashing **** typically be
installed into the roof assembly to prevent against the penetrating nature of wind-driven rains. It was observed that
this roof assembly was lacking these flashing sections, and this lack of birdsmouth flashings was noted on both sides
of the dormer being tested, as well as on the other two dormers on the front facing roof slope. The middle dormer
was also tested, and it also leaked at the birdsmouth.
A birdsmouth flashing is not explicitly expressed as part of Florida Building Code; as such a roof installer is not
legally obliged to install a birdsmouth flashing. However, even though a birdsmouth flashing is not explicitly
expressed by Florida Building Code, many roof installers will install this small section of flashing as it can be very
helpful in protecting against wind driven rains. Although it is not impossible to install a shingle roof such that it will
do well (at preventing water intrusion) in wind driven rains without a birdsmouth flashing, it is much easier to do
well in wind driven rains with a birdsmouth flashing installed. As mentioned previously, a birdsmouth is essentially
a gapping hole in a roof located directly beneath the valley of two intersecting perpendicular roof slopes. The water
flow in a valley is of a much greater magnitude than any other area in a roof, and the birdsmouth is arguably the
weakest point (in terms of water-shedding efficacy) of the entire roof assembly. To leave this area of great water
flow with an impaired water-shedding efficacy unprotected by a shielding plate (known as a birdsmouth flashing) is
the negligence of the original builder of the roof. It should be noted that the birdsmouth flashings are approximately
twelve (12) feet away from the corner flashing repairs that we had performed in November of 2012.
As we had observed that the reported leaks were in now way involved with what we had repaired in November of
2012, we submitted a proposal for additional repairs to these dormers. As we had seen that the flashings to the
dormers were going to continue to be problematic, we felt that it was best to submit a proposal such that all of the
dormers were completely re-flashed. In order to replace the perimeter flashing on all three dormers we would need
approximately ninety (90) linear feet of L-flashing. Our previously performed repair required only twenty (20)
linear feet of this flashing. This is to say that our initial repair proposal addressed replacing no more than twenty
(20) percent of the roof-to-wall flashings of these dormers. As there continued to be issues relating to these dormers
and the way in which the original builder had installed their flashings, we believed that it was reasonable to submit a
proposal suggesting that the dormers be completely re-flashed. This work-scope is obviously more costly than what
was previously proposed. This more costly repair was not thought to be necessary in November of 2012 as we only
had evidence of two (2) corners that needed to be re-worked.
We submitted a third proposal that addressed replacing all of the roof-to-wall flashing on all three dormers. When
this proposal was received by Celebration Rental Properties, we were given a request to submit a bid whereby the
shingles on this entire front facing roof slope were to be replaced, as well as to submit a proposal whereby the entire
roof was replaced. Prior to our submittal of the roof replacement proposal we were informed of a complaint to the
BBB of Central Florida regarding the ***** property. It was upon receipt of the notice of the complaint that we
neglected to offer any additional proposals for roof repairs or roof replacements to this property. It was also brought
to our attention that the *****'s were involved in a law suit involving the builder of this home.
To date we have been to the ***** property on three occasions to provide diagnostics and consultations in regards to
the persistent problems involving the flashings on these dormers. We have been hired on one occasion to perform
repairs to two (2) sections of flashing that were undeniably in an non-functional condition and that were existing
over the top of deteriorated roof sheathing. On the occasion that we were hired to perform roof repairs, we did find
that the condition of the flashing was as we expected it to be (which is to say that it was poor), and we did find and
replace the deteriorated roof sheathing that was correlative to this non-functional flashing. Everything that was in
our proposal was performed, and an additional amount of work was performed out of necessity - as the condition of
the flashing was worse than expected. A warranty was supplied based on our performed repairs, and a water test
confirmed that our repairs are sound and that they are not allowing water intrusion to occur.
Furthermore we do know that at least some of the information that we have submitted to the Zohirs has been
provided to the builder so that the builder could use our diagnostics to address the leak that they had been attempting
to correct since prior to our primary arrival at this property. We have submitted evidence of the issue with the void
in the stucco, which was water tested and confirmed to be problematic, and that was ultimately corrected by a party
other than ourselves. We have also submitted visual evidence of the leaks that were found near the birdsmouth
flashings. Although we do provide free estimates, we do not think that it is in good faith when we are called upon
on multiple occasions for the purposes of diagnostics so that this information can be passed on to other parties such
that these other parties perform work based upon our findings. Have the Zohirs used any or all of our diagnostic
information and submitted proposals as evidence in their suit against the builder of the home? A contractor should
not be held to the paradigm of 'free estimates' if the homeowner is considering using the information gained through
this contractor as evidence in a law suit. If the homeowner has plans of using information obtained from a
contractor, the contractor should be informed of this intent, such that the contractor may act more as a consultant,
and less as a party involved in a diagnostic and bidding process. No, we do not have explicit proof that our
information has been used by this homeowner; but the idea that the builder found the void in the caulk is peculiar
(considering that they had attempted previous repairs without touching the stucco).
The warranty provided to the Zohirs on November 28, 2012 explicitly states that, "if, upon inspection, there are no
roof-related deficiencies covered under this warranty, there will be a charge for the inspection and/or any repairs
made." In May of 2013 we did determine that our repairs were not faulty and were not the cause of the water
intrusion; therefore, by explicit endorsement of our warranty, we did have the right to invoice the Zohirs for our
inspection of the roof leak reported in 2013. The billing on our work-order explicitly states a rate of $65.00 per
man-hour; we incurred no less than four man-hours on this service call. As such it was our right to bill the ****** an
amount equal to or greater than $260.00. We did forfeit this right to bill the ****** as the situation was determined
to be sensitive in nature. Instead of billing for this service call that determined our work to be fully functional and
free of detriment, we provided a proposal such that the remaining roof-to-wall flashings could be corrected in the
manner of the areas that we corrected in November 2012.
We do not believe that we should be held liable for work that we never performed. Furthermore, we believe that it is
in bad faith for the homeowners to be involved in a law suit with the builder, while at the same time, filing a
complaint against ourselves with the BBB for work that was installed by the original builder. Every last inch of
problematic flashing that has been installed on these dormers was installed by the original builder. There is evidence
of on-going repairs that can likely be attributed to the half-hearted efforts of the builder to resolve the leak issues.
The only proper way to repair these leaky dormers is to cut out the stucco and to remove and replace the roof-to-wall
flashing. The area of roof-to-wall flashing that we have corrected is now in a proper functioning condition. Other
ares of this flashing have been found to be in a non-functional condition; or they have found to be entirely lacking in
certain areas that are prone to leak. We do not believe that we were incorrect in pointing out an obvious issue that
was tested and confirmed to be problematic on our first encounter with these dormers. We do not believe that we
were incorrect in pointing out the deteriorated roof decking that was found on our second visit to this home, nor do
we believe that these repairs to the roof decking and the roof-to-wall flashing were made in vain. And finally, we do
not believe that it is improper that we should suggest replacing all of the roof-to-wall flashing around these dormers
now that we have determined additional areas of the dormer flashings to be ineffective as water-shedding devices.
To have come to conclusions other than those which were reached at the times our investigations of the roof
assembly were performed would have been extraordinary by all measures. This is to say that when a water test is
performed on a hole in the stucco, located in the vicinity of a leak, and after this hole in the stucco is confirmed to be
leaking by a water test, it would be ridiculous to submit a bid to replace ninety (90) linear feet of flashing by way of
cutting out ninety linear feet of stucco: and all of this at an extraordinary cost to the home-owner. This would not
make sense. What makes sense is what was bid: to seal the void in the stucco for approximately three hundred
dollars. To argue that this ninety linear feet of stucco needed replacement on our second visit, especially considering
that we did not even perform the repair associated with our initially submitted proposal, would also have seemed
excessive, as deteriorated wood was located in direct contact with flashing in such bad condition that holes were
rusted through it. To bid for the replacement of ninety (90) linear feet of L-flashing, when only twenty (20) linear
feet of L-flashing was needed to repair that which was rusted to the point of inefficacy, would also have likely been
met with ridicule. Even now, it may be argued that an entire replacement of ninety (90) linear feet of L-flashing
need not occur in order to prevent the current leaks. We have chosen to bid for the replacement of the entirety of the
dormer flashings as we have seen that these issues involving this roof-to-wall flashing are likely to continue due to
the poor workmanship involved in their original installation. We, however, were not the contractor involved with
this original installation; we are not the contractor that is the defendant in the case involving the ******* and
ultimately we are not the contractor that should shoulder the onus of these accusations of improper business
practices. It is regrettable that the ****** find themselves the victims of bad building practices, but we do not
believe that these bad practices originate with ourselves; and the ****** should be aware of this, as they know that
we did not builder their home or install their original roof. It is also regrettable that a contractor attempting to assist
a homeowner whom has experienced troubles should be defamed because of the misfortunes they experience, even
though these misfortunes are at the hands of a differing contractor.
If there are any additional questions or comments in regards to this issue please address them to myself at
********; or by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX.
****** *******
Project Manager

Final Consumer Response
See attachment.

******* ******
Consumer Affairs Representative
Better Business Bureau of Central Florida, Inc.
1600 S. Grant Street
Longwood, FL 32750
Re: Florida Universal Roofing Inc., claim #XXXXXXXX
We appreciate the detailed explanation of the problems Florida Universal Roofing, Inc.
(FURI) found with the dormers. We continue to believe the refusal to provide a timely
quote to replace the roof constitutes bad business practice. Their response to BBB
indicated that they did not provide a quote because we had filed our claim with the BBB.
The quote was requested between the 22" and the 2gth of May. We submitted the
complaint to BBB on June l9th because FUR1 had not responded nor had the company
indicated it was not interested in the job.
We were quite prepared to consider a FUR1 quote for the roof replacement. We had
paid them $2,654 for roof repairs in late 2012. When leaks appeared again from the
same area in spring 2013, and FUR1 estimated repairs of at least $4,831, we wanted to
compare the cost of these repairs to the price of a new roof. FUR1 chose not to respond
to that request for at least 4 weeks.
We were surprised by the allegations that we used FUR1 inspections and estimates in
litigation with the builder. The builder's warranty covered some repairs to the roof in the
past but the roof is no longer under the builder's warranty. We understand we are
responsible for repairs or replacement costs. We have no dispute with the builder over
the roof (although the written response to this claim indicates the original roof
installation was faulty). We have not used FURI, or bids from any other vendor, to gain
information to use against the builder. We HAVE paid (other) contractors explicitly to
assess damage to other parts of the house and provide written opinions and reports.
****** and ********* *****, owners
*** *** ******* ****
************ ** XXXXX

Final Business Response
State Certified CC-CXXXXXX

1808 Acme Street Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX


To: ******* ******
Consumer Affairs Representative
Better Business Bureau of Central Florida, Inc.
1600 S. Grant Street
Longwood, FL XXXXX

Re: ********* & ****** ***** Residence
*** *** ******* ****
********** ** XXXXX

This is in response to the letter received August 5, 2013 @ 7:53PM, No. *****

First of all, at no time did our office deal directly with the ******* All of our communication was through their management company, *********** ****** ****** Our contact there is ***** ********** There is great difficulty in estimating roof replacement projects in Celebration, Florida, as the architecture of the homes and lawns are not conducive to major construction projects (after the homes are initially built). In order to mitigate a portion of the difficulty involved in estimating to replace the roof at *** *** ******* ***** ********** *** we purchased a satellite imagery of the home that gave information regarding the dimensions of the roof. June 19, 2013, at 10:21 AM, our satellite imagery of the ***** residence was complete and ready for our review. This report had a cost of approximately $50.00. On the same day that this report was delivered, we received an official complaint from the BBB in regards to the ***** roof. We were not certain about the reason behind this complaint.

We did repair a small portion of the ***** roof previously, as we had also submitted three (3) disparate roof proposals to repair the problematic areas of this roof. We were hired to perform one of the three submitted proposals, so we had been to the ***** property a total of four times. The fourth visit was made as a response to a call which had conveyed the notion that the portion of the roof that we had worked on was leaking again. After water testing the roof, we proved that this was an incorrect assessment of the newest roof leak. At the time of that visit, we were shown another leak. We tested the second reported leak, and were able to prove that that leak was also not connected to our work.

As neither of the leaks reported in May of 2013 were related to our work, we submitted a third proposal to the Celebration Rental Group for the ***** Residence with a work scope that involved replacing the roof slope plane where the three problematic dormers were located. Upon receiving this proposal, and upon receiving the news that the leaks were not associated with our work on the home (rather, they were associated with the original construction of the home), *********** ****** ***** requested a roof replacement proposal. As the ****** have noted in their complaint to the BBB, it took some time to work on this proposal. As we have made mention in the first paragraph of this letter, the homes of Celebration

are among the most difficult roofs in Central Florida to estimate, and we had to request a satellite report which we had to purchase, in order to be able to deliver a proposal for the roof replacement to Celebration Rental Group. The only complaint that the ****** have with us is that they did not receive their fourth free estimate in a time frame that was of their liking.

During the time that we were working on this estimate, we did offer to install a tarp on the ***** residence. This offer was made to Celebration Rental Group. A price was given for this service. We were told that our price for installing this tarp was too high and were told not to install the tarp. This offer to tarp the roof was made in the second week of June. The complaint made to the BBB is that we knew how crucial it was to provide an estimate to the ****** because we knew how bad it was leaking. However, when given a chance to prevent this critical leak with the installation of a tarp, the Zohirs (through their agent, *********** ****** ****** did not respond to our offer in a way that conveyed the gravity of the situation. Rather, it did not convey the perceived urgency of the ****** that is said to be the basis of the complaint to the BBB.

As of August 26, 2013, the home at *** *** ******* **** has had a permit issued for roof replacement. It would be absurd for us to offer a proposal to them at this point; nor would we be interested in offering a free proposal to anyone that felt they needed to complain to the BBB about us - as a gulf of trust would exist between the contractor and the homeowner before the commencement of a project.

To date, we have spent several hours in the busiest time of the year responding to the BBB in regards to our failure to produce a free proposal in the time of the complainers liking. It did take two months and a week after this initial complaint for the ****** to pull a permit for their roof replacement - so it does not look like there was such an emergency that merited such actions as complaining to the BBB. Is this complaint actually rooted in the fact that we were not capable of fully correcting an improperly installed roof under our original proposed work scope? Is this complaint rooted in the fact that the ****** appear to have been dealing with this roof leak for many years? It is rare that complaints are made to the BBB over the state of something that is said to be free. Nor was there anything free about our estimates. They cost us, and they cost every other roofing company that is forced to offer these free estimates a good deal of time and money.

That the ****** are complaining about the time and money that were given to their issues (by Florida Universal Roofing) is what we find most unsettling. There was no emergency, because if there was, the offer of the tarp would have been accepted. The ****** had been dealing with these leaks for many years.


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

Industry Comparison| Chart

Roofing Contractors, Contractor - Flat Roof, Contractor - Metal Roofing, Commercial Roofing

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.


What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.


BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.