Oviedo Roofing damaged my home, negligently installed materials, used "bait & switch" tactic to charge 30% more, and did not fulfill contract terms.
Regarding our contract dated August 25, 2014 and job completion date Sept. 30, 2014 (supporting docs included):
1. Oviedo Roofing's negligent, faulty, lackadaisical application of roofing materials during an extreme downpour on 9/26/14 resulted in flood damage to my master bathroom. Installers refused to stop installation during the downpour (despite best practices and repeated admonitions), removed flashing, and did not replace in time to prevent a deluge from cascading down the wall of my bathroom and soaking insulation, walls, shelving, floors, and construction material. Immediately following, owner ******* ***** was aware of damage and insisted he was fully responsible.
2. On a daily basis installers would apply roofing materials in extreme downpours despite direct orders from foremen (and often from me) not to.
3. Oviedo Roofing implemented "bait and switch" tactics used to secure my business and then increase our agreed-upon contract price by 30% (from $12,490 to $16,490).
4. Oviedo Roofing failed to provide me with regular updates of the escalating price before work was completed.
5. Oviedo Roofing unnecessarily removed and replaced en masse roofing deck without my authorization (in large part resulting in the surprise 30% price increase).
6. Upon completion of work, owner ******* ***** visited my property, acknowledged negligence and unfair business practices, and agreed to accept $15,901 (a 28% increase from agreed-upon contract price) and agreed to reroof my boat dock. After prompt payment in full (see supporting doc), Oviedo Roofing never returned to reroof boat dock.
7. Mr. ***** and Oviedo Roofing refuse to return my calls. I spoke with office staff (*****) 4 times during the week of 12/8/14 (I can provide supporting docs) requesting to speak with Mr. ***** to no avail. On 1/7/15, I notified via email Mr. ***** and Oviedo Roofing of my intention to file this complaint (I can provide supporting docs) and still did not receive a response.
Cost of master bathroom damage repair and cost of boat dock reroof.
Our attorney has been communicating with
The business responded to this complaint but asked that its response not be published.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept Mr. *****'s response. Mr. *****'s use of the word "extort" is offensive and an attempt to tarnish, taint, slander, misrepresent facts and harm my otherwise spotless reputation. If Mr. ***** wanted to "resolve any concern" he would have responded to my numerous attempts to contact him last year (as detailed in my original complaint) and resolve this dispute amicably. Mr. *****'s attorney has not been "communicating" with me; he issued me one email/letter on January 19 inviting me to discuss the matter with his office and insisting Mr. ***** is "open to discussion." Despite this offer, I have since received no communication from Mr. ***** nor his attorney, even after my reply (copied and pasted below). I am a reasonable person. My intention from the beginning was to have a reasonable conversation with Mr. ***** about the inconvenience, damage, and unexpected additional cost caused by this project. I will settle this dispute for the cost of repairs to my bathroom which Mr. *****'s attorney admitted occurred during the roofing process which, as I detail in my response below, were not "acts of God."
From: **** **********
To: **** ** *********
Sent: Thursday, January 29, XXXX X:XX PM
Subject: Re: Oviedo Roofing Enterprises, Inc.
Thank you for your correspondence. It is refreshing considering my many unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. ***** and Oviedo Roofing over the past month via telephone and email to discuss this matter. It is also refreshing and frankly surprising that Oviedo Roofing remains, as you say, open to discussion despite Mr. *****'s unwillingness to return my phone calls and emails. I enjoyed meeting with and spending time with Mr. ***** at my residence in September, appreciated his willingness as a business owner to appear in person and "make things right," gained respect for his character for taking full responsibility for the sub-par workmanship and his admission that the unsatisfactory service I received was highly unusual, and accepted his conciliatory offer to slightly reduce the increased invoice price and to re-roof my boat dock. He even repeatedly thanked me for my "grace." That said, it confounds me and truly disappoints me that Mr. ***** chooses to no longer communicate with me and instead has asked you to correspond with me.
Mr. *********, let me ask you directly - your position is that Mr. ***** denies his promise he made to me at my residence with witnesses present to re-roof my boat dock as compensation for the inconvenience, damage, and unexpected additional cost caused by this project?
Perhaps Mr. ***** has not made you aware that he and my contractor, for a reason undisclosed to me, could not come to terms on the second phase of roofing at my residence (a newly completed addition). I suspect Oviedo Roofing not securing this second phase contract is largely the reason Mr. ***** has chosen to ignore my calls to which he should be reminded that my contractor's decisions are his own and have no bearing on the agreement that I entered into with Oviedo Roofing on August 25.
The damage caused to my master bathroom resulted not from an act of God, but rather from the installers' lack of diligence to properly and hastily reinstall flashing material before the severe downpour. My contractor's appearance or lack thereof is immaterial as the problem resulted not from stucco that had been removed, but rather from flashing that had been removed by Oviedo Roofing installers. My contractor can testify to this. Incidentally, this explanation was also provided to me by the onsite foreman who observed the damage as it was occurring. He admitted fault as did Mr. *****. As I'm sure you know, Mr. *********, stucco is not waterproof - flashing, when properly installed, is. Furthermore, as soon as the flashing during the downpour was properly installed, the water intrusion ceased. Regardless, assuming your claim is correct, no roofer employing best practices should remove any material that makes a home vulnerable to water intrusion during the rainy summer season when severe weather is forecast with the expectation that a "general contractor was to redo the stucco the next day."
My contractor did not state it was merely a baseboard that was damaged. Also, the amount of water that flooded my master bathroom was sizable. I can provide numerous photographs illustrating the damage caused to the drywall, insulation, walls, shelving, floors, and construction material due to the large amount of water that penetrated. I can also provide the cost to repair all materials.
With regard to the increase in price, I think you'd agree a 30% difference from the contract price to the final invoice is not reasonable. I know this because I've consulted with several roofers and contractors who agree that a 30% increase is highly unusual and far from reasonable, especially on a roof that had last been replaced only 10 years ago. Mr. ***** himself agreed the increase was unusual. More so, it's bad business and a bad business practice. Florida law, as you know, provides protection for consumers from unreasonable "up" charges. Oviedo Roofing staff could have and should have kept me abreast of the extreme increase especially because, fittingly, it is Oviedo Roofing's policy to do so. Initially, office staff did inform me daily via phone call of the amount of wood that had been removed. After the first several days of work, those phone calls ceased leading me to believe the further replacing of wood had ceased.
All of the details in my email to Oviedo Roofing are factual and honest, far from attempts to slander or defame. My attorney has reviewed this response and I can certainly engage him in further discussions and to vigorously defend my rights as a consumer.
Let me be clear - I am not a satisfied customer with good reason. If it is truly Oviedo Roofing's intention to include me among its list of satisfied customers, Mr. ***** should have responded to my numerous attempts to contact him without having to lodge a complaint. Satisfying a customer begins with the simplest of customer service etiquette: returning a phone call. Mr. ***** had infinite opportunities to return my calls, email me, or visit me in person as he had done in the past. In fact, had Mr. ***** communicated with me in the same forthcoming, humble, professional manner in which he'd made the boat dock re-roofing offer in the first place, and had he explained his reasoning for suddenly retracting his request (i.e. financial hardship, not being selected by my contractor for the second phase), I might have accepted his explanation and might have continued to hold him in high regard.
I, too, remain open to discussion. My numerous attempts at contacting Mr. ***** were aimed at resolving this dispute amicably. I'm still hopeful this is possible.
Final Business Response
Oviedo Roofing and Mr. ********** have reached an amicable confidential resolution.
Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)