Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Armadillo Roofing & Exteriors

Phone: (512) 828-6389 Fax: (512) 828-6938 View Additional Phone Numbers 13492 Research Blvd Ste 120 Pmb 102, Austin, TX 78750 http://www.armadilloroofing.com


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


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Armadillo Roofing & Exteriors meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Armadillo Roofing & Exteriors include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

1 complaint closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 1
Total Closed Complaints 1

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Armadillo Roofing & Exteriors
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: January 13, 2004 Business started: 01/01/2003 Business started locally: 01/01/2003 Business incorporated 04/25/2006 in TX
Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. Mark Franz, Owner
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Mark Franz, Owner
Business Category

Roofing Contractors Commercial Roofing Roofing Service Consultants Siding Contractors Construction & Remodeling Services Remodeling Services Windows - Installation & Service Doors Doors - Installation Windows & Doors - Installation & Service Windows Fire & Water Damage Restoration Contractors - General Contractor - Remodel & Repair Home Improvements Home Improvements - Additions

Alternate Business Names
Armadillo General Contractors Armadillo General Contractors LLC
Industry Tips
Tips for hiring a contractor Tips for hiring a roofing contractor

Additional Locations

  • 13492 Research Blvd Ste 120 Pmb 102

    Austin, TX 78750 (512) 828-6380 (512) 828-6389

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

10/30/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Armadillo Roofing installed a modified bitumen roof at my rental property located in ****** in March of 2011. The contractor provided a 10-year warranty which I have had to invoke four ***es since the roof was installed. Yes, the roof has leaked four ***es since then, the most recent event starting on Saturday, 9/13/14 and continuing through Sunday, 21st, even after the rain had stopped due to significant water ponding on the roof. This is the worst leak I've had in 22 years of owning this property (or any property I've ever owned, for that matter, and I have owned a few). I first alerted **** ***** and *** ****** to the problem the next day, Sunday, the 14th, via text message after becoming aware of it myself the previous evening. The tenant called me the evening of the 13th and sent photos of the areas where water was coming in—it was a substantial amount of water. ****, the owner was out of the country until the 25th (although I was not informed of this until very late Thursday evening), but his foreman, ***, came out on Tuesday to take a look. *** called me and stated that he could not say for sure where the water was getting in. He did not offer to make any temporary repairs or a solution of any kind other than to say he would talk to **** about it. This was really not an acceptable response so I decided to ask another roofing contractor to assess the situation. Also, for some reason, he did not mention that **** was out of the country until the following week. There was no sense of urgency whatsoever on his part. On Tuesday I obtained a recommendation for a reputable roofing contractor from my insurance agent and contacted him for assistance. **** ********** of Horizon Construction was able to come out that same day and inspected the roof thoroughly, pointing out numerous flaws in the installation and included many photographs documenting the excessive standing water, areas where water was likely entering the structure. My tenants had to move their furniture away from the wall in the master bedroom and some of the furniture in the living room where it was leaking from the ceiling and exterior wall. In the mean***e, it continued to rain and more rain was in the forecast. I still had not heard from ****. I emailed the report to him on Thursday and finally received a call from him on Friday, mid-day. Again, I described the severity of the problem and asked him to send someone over to implement temporary repairs, or at least put up a tarp until the issues could be permanently addressed. He said he would try to get someone over there that afternoon. At around 5:30pm *** finally called and told me they were not going to be able to get over there for at least 2-3 days. While it would have been best for Armadillo to do the temporary repairs, I could not let the leak go on unabated for another 2-3 days--the damage was already significant. I had just spent $2,200 to have the entire unit painted and the previous leak damage repaired. Not to mention my (and the tenants') concern about the possibility of mold in the walls. This is FIVE DAYS after I told them about the problem and asked them to fix it. So I asked another contractor to make some temporary repairs which he documented with photos so there would be no mistaking his repairs for work ***e by Armadillo. **** ***** came out to look at the roof on Monday, September 29th, and as expected, he blames the leaking on either the contractor who replaced some siding that abuts the roof or a flashing penetration at one of the A/C condensing units on the roof. This area of siding was replaced by another contractor earlier this year. Interestingly, last year, there was a leak above the other unit and **** blamed it on the contractor who replaced the siding on that section of wall. However, when the other contractor would not accept any responsibility and wouldn’t even come out to look at it, Armadillo finally went ahead and took care of it. So even though I used a different contractor this ***e to replace the siding above this unit Armadillo is blaming the leak on the contractor again. The siding contractor denies any responsibility as well so in order to get to the bottom of this I employed the services of an independent roofing consultant. I engaged *** ****** of ****** Construction Consulting to inspect the roof and give me a professional unbiased determination as to the cause of the leak. Based upon his reputation with 47 years of experience (and the fact that he had no stake whatsoever in the outcome of this issue), I trust in his findings which conclusively identify the roof as the source of the leak. Furthermore, the consultant has advised that the roof workmanship is of such poor quality it should be replaced completely. I would like to send a copy of the report to the BBB as evidence for my case.

Desired Settlement: To make this situation equitable again I expect restitution from Armadillo Roofing to include the following: a full refund of the amount paid for the roof installation, $5,883, to be compensated for the roofing consultant’s fee of $750, as well as compensation for the interior repair costs of $1,725. This results in a total of $8,358. I am not even including the $535 I had to spend earlier this year to repair the interior of the other unit from a leak on that side. Since I am now faced with having to replace the roof in its entirety, which will cost in the range of $9,000-10,000 (for the most suitable type of roofing material installed correctly), it is only fair that I should receive a refund of the money paid to Armadillo to put toward a new roof and compensation for my other expenses related to this issue.

Business Response:

On February 15, 2011, the Customer signed a Contract to have Armadillo work on the Roof for the property located at **** ********** ****, ******, ****** County, ***** *****. (Please see the attached copy of the Contract.)

 

Our work was completed to the Customer's satisfaction on February 28, 2011. (Please see the attached copy of Armadillo's "Post-Construction Checklist" Form signed by the Customer on March 11, 2011 indicating her being satisfied with our work.)

 

On June 23, 2011, Armadillo was called out to investigate a small leak which was due to a small hole in the new modified bitumen membrane. This item was repaired under our warranty on July 1, 2011 and according to the Customer, it stopped the leak.

 

On two separate occasions, Armadillo was invited by the Customer to provide an es***ate to replace some adjacent exterior siding in two areas. Both ***es, the Customer elected to hire another contractor to complete the siding work.

 

The first of the two siding jobs (subsequent to our roofing work) resulted in the contractor disturbing the metal flashing above our roof work, as well as our modified bitumen and base wall metal flashing where our work terminated at a wall which elevates above the roof line. The result of the disturbances resulted in problematic leaks below the immediate area. On more than one occasion, Armadillo was called out to investigate these leaks. We discovered the source, determined the other contractor's work was the cause, and repaired the other contractor's defective base metal flashing work at no cost to the Customer.

 

In February, 2014, **** ***** met the Customer to inspect for a Leak in Unit A. The source of the leak was discovered to be rotted wood siding. **** injected roofing caulk into the cavity as a temporary measure which stopped this particular leak. Although this was not a leak associated with the roof, this temporary repair was completed at no cost to the Customer. (Please refer to the attached document titled, "03-31-2014 **** Review.") A **** Review was posted by the Customer shortly after this repair, indicating her appreciation for our repairing this leak and another area where Armadillo was not at fault nor responsible. Armadillo completed the repairs at no charge to the Customer.

 

The second of the two siding jobs which was recently performed by another contractor (not Armadillo), was inspected subsequent to the Customer reporting a leak on or about September 20, 2014. On September 29, 2014, Customer requested that Armadillo meet with her Insurance Claims Adjuster. We met and discovered new rainwater leaks located directly below the new siding and what appears to be a new AC Condenser Unit.

 

Here is a 're-print' of the email which was sent to the Customer on October 1, 2014 (a copy is attached to this email):

 

Dear Ms. ********,

Thank you for your email.

It is Armadillo's opinion that the current breach in the envelope of your building is either a defective HVAC penetration flashing, the plastic (or fiberglass resin) pad upon which the Air Conditioning condenser unit is placed (which is cutting into the modified bitumen roofing material), and/or improperly installed / flashed siding, and is not a result of our original roofing materials and workmanship.

All of the aforementioned work was completed by other contractors you hired, subsequent to our original job which we completed on February 28, 2011.

As we discovered during several of our previous inspections since the roof was replaced, the prior leaks have  been attributable to work performed by other contractors who you hired; including siding and fascia replacement performed subsequent to our original re-Roof.

If you choose to pursue your claim in a court of law, we have already consulted with Legal Counsel and will defend against all claims in court.

Sincerely,

**** *****, *********

 

10-14-2014 email to BBB continued...

In summary, Armadillo stands behind our 'position' as depicted in the re-print of our 10/01/2014 email above.

The demands the Customer is making are unreasonable. It is our opinion that the present roof modified bitumen membrane remains serviceable and is performing its intended function. Armadillo is happy to honor our warranty. However, we feel that it is not our responsibility to continue to repair defects caused by other contractors at no charge to the Customer.

Copies of the original Contract, Post-Construction Checklist, the Customer's 03/31/2014 **** Review, and relative photos are attached.

 

Sincerely,

**** *****, *********

 

Consumer Response: Complaint: ********


I am rejecting this response as outline in my rebuttal below:


The work was completed to my satisfaction until it started leaking! I am not a  roofing expert--how could I know when the roof was completed how poor the workmanship was? Unfortunately, this became evident over ***e and was clearly and unequivocally established in the roofing consultant’s inspection report. Yet Mr. ***** is so focused on blaming the leaks on other contractors he hasn’t once acknowledged the report prepared by *** ******, an independent roofing consultant with 47 years of experience. Mr. ****** is not currently a contractor; he strictly works as a construction/roofing consultant and an expert witness in litigation. In the unlikely event Mr. ***** did not receive the report I sent via email on October 9, 2014 I am attaching it to this message.


The first leak occurred approximately three months after the roof was installed. The fact that Armadillo honored their warranty and repaired the leak does not merit any special recognition. 


I used another contractor  to replace the siding and windows above the B-unit because he had been recommended by a trusted source and Armadillo’s bid was significantly higher. Contrary to Mr. *****’s statement, the source of the leak was never clearly determined. In fact, when *** ******, the project manager for my roof job, first inspected the leak he said he wasn’t sure where the water was entering. He said he thought it could be the flashing but wasn’t certain if it was a result of the siding replacement or an issue with the roof itself. Even when he came out a second ***e to look for the leak from the interior (he cut out some of the drywall to look at the roof decking) he said it was difficult to tell for sure where it was getting in. It was only Mr. *****’s opinion that the leak was a result of the siding replacement.  The siding contractor insisted that he had followed standard industry protocols and did nothing that would have caused a leak. Since the siding contractor would not come out to inspect the leak area, to Mr. *****’s credit, he offered to go ahead and take care of the leak. He had his subcontractor build up that section of the roof to slope away from the wall which should have been ***e as part of the original installation to prevent the heavy ponding in that area. The work they did was successful in stopping that leak and Mr. ***** asked me to post a positive review on ****. I still didn’t know whether the leak was due to a roof flashing issue or a siding issue but I did appreciate that Armadillo repaired the leak so I wrote a review on **** as per his request.


First of all, the caulk applied to the deteriorated siding by Mr. ***** did not stop the leak. During the next heavy rain event, the leak still manifested in the same area in a corner of the master bedroom. So, his claim that the temporary repair was effective is incorrect. The temporary repair was not effective because it was not leaking through the siding—it was coming from the roof as we now know from the consultant’s report. But since the siding did need to be replaced I had it ***e by another contractor (a different one from the one previously used on the other area of siding) as part of an overall spot replacement project in mid-April. Incidentally, I used a different contractor because Armadillo took three weeks to get me an es***ate and then it wasn’t even what I had asked for (which was Hardie board up on the roof transition and MDF for all of the other areas on the building). During the next significant  rain event (on September 13th), severe leaks were noted both in the 2nd floor master bedroom along the east wall and in the ceiling and wall of the living room on the first floor. Mr. ***** blames the leaking on the siding work ***e by the second contractor and also pointed a finger at the A/C contractor, claiming that the water could have been entering through a small hole in the caulk around the AC penetration.  The A/C condenser was replaced in May, 2013 however there were no leaks until February of this year. Upon informing my AC contractor of the situation, he went out the next day and patched the hole in the caulk as well as replaced the pad underneath the unit. It is important to note, however, that the consultant states that neither the indentation from the AC pad nor the gap in the caulk around the pitch pan were the primary source (if any) of the leak. It should also be noted that after the AC serviceman took steps to address those issues, the leak was still active the next ***e it rained. I felt I had no choice but to hire a professional roofing consultant to get a clear determination from someone with no stake in the outcome. Information provided by my tenants concerning the nature of the water intrusion is also key to the question of the leak source. I have already communicated this to Mr. ***** but apparently he is ignoring it so I’m going to say it again. The tenants reported that the leak was first observed on the evening of September 13th. I contacted Mr. ***** and *** ****** via text  message the next day even though it was a Sunday because the leak was so bad. Although the rain let up on Sunday evening, water continued to seep down the upstairs wall, creating a bulge in the paint and also continued to drip from the ceiling for another 1-2 days. The tenants had to use a bucket to catch the water, emptying it several ***es over the course of those days. Per the consultant's report, that volume of water intrusion is not the result of a breech in siding or a break in the AC penetration flashing as Mr. ***** claims. Such a leak that continues even after rainfall has ceased comes from a large pool of standing water due to voids in flashing and other roof defects. The report specifically states that even if water was entering through the break in the AC flashing, it would not produce the volume of water observed in the walls and ceilings. This is also supported by the photograph of the caulked flashing area. To summarize, the specific characteristics of the leak, in addition to the large volume of standing water along the 1-foot step-down roof, and the defects in workmanship identified by the consultant all clearly point to a faulty roof. I have provided numerous photographs, some taken by another roofing contractor during the first rain event and those subsequently
taken by the consultant, that clearly illustrate the inferior workmanship. How can Mr. *****, in good conscience, continue to deny responsibility for this leak? Had the roof been properly installed and flashed at the outset we wouldn’t be having this conversation.


My demands are not unreasonable considering I paid good money for a roof that was supposed to be installed in a professional workmanlike manner but that is not what I received. Now I must spend $9,000-$10,000 for an entire roof replacement and $1,700 for  interior water damage repairs, not to mention the cost of hiring another contractor to make temporary repairs, and the cost of the consultant. As if all of that isn’t bad enough, I will likely experience a loss of rental income because my tenants are moving out only two months into their one-year lease due to the roof and interior not being repaired quickly enough. I couldn’t get repairs ***e until I knew for certain what needed to be repaired and then Armadillo denied responsibility. It didn’t help that Mr. ***** was out of the country when the leak started on the 13th, did not return until September 25th and would not authorize any temporary repairs by his employees. I have attached the roofing consultant’s report along with an assessment prepared by **** ********** of Horizon Construction, both with numerous photos illustrating the large volumes of standing water and details of obviously poor workmanship. 


I have listed below what I expect from Mr. ***** to make this situation right and to avoid a lawsuit:


1. Refund the full amount paid to Armadillo Roofing for the defective modified bitumen roof -- $5,883.00


2. Pay the cost of repairs for interior water damage -- $1,725.00

3. Reimburse the cost of temporary roof repairs made on 9/19/14 and 10/12/14 to prevent further damage until the roof can be replaced. -- $1,075.00

4. Reimburse the roofing consultant's fee -- $750.00

I did not even include the potential loss of rent I am facing by losing tenants who had signed a one-year lease after only three months because of this situation. If Armadillo Roofing will provide payment in the amount of $9,433 for the expenses listed above I will consider the matter settled. I will gladly provide copies of invoices for the above expenses. Otherwise, I will seek justice through litigation and will continue to publish reviews of my negative experience on every social media outlet and forum possible and by word of mouth at every opportunity.


Sincerely,


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

Business Response: Dear Customer,

As previously stated, "It is Armadillo's opinion that the current breach in the envelope of
your building is either a defective HVAC penetration flashing, the plastic (or
fiberglass resin) pad upon which the Air Conditioning condenser unit is placed
(which is cutting into the modified bitumen roofing material), and/or
improperly installed / flashed siding, and is not a
result of our original roofing materials and workmanship.

All of the aforementioned work
was completed by other contractors you hired, subsequent to our original job
which we completed on February 28, 2011.

As we discovered during
several of our previous inspections since the roof was replaced, the prior
leaks have been attributable to work performed by other contractors who
you hired; including siding and fascia replacement performed subsequent to our
original re-Roof."

Armadillo is happy to return to this Property to re-inspect all that has been reported to the Customer by others. We are happy to correct any of our original and possibly improperly installed roofing materials and components. The work completed by other contractors as well as any damages to our originally installed roofing system components subsequent to our February 28, 2011work is not covered by the Armadillo Warranty.

For the area of new siding located directly above the areas of leaks: we believe that in order to properly determine whether or not the flashing installed is contributing to the leaks, it will be necessary to remove the first couple of courses of the new siding recently installed by another contractor which has covered up this flashing. We are happy to do this at no charge to the Customer. If it is determined that the new siding work completed by another contractor has compromised our original work, then we will need to charge a nominal price for our correcting their work. If it is determined that our original flashing work is at fault, the we will be happy to correct our work and complete the siding repairs for this immediate area at no cost to the Customer.

Please let us know if the Customer is willing to allow us to schedule the aforementioned offer of inspection and work.

Sincerely,

**** *****, *********

Consumer Response: Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

As I mentioned in my previous response, because Armadillo Roofing would do nothing to repair the leak, even on a temporary basis, there is no way I could postpone repairs to the roof and allow water to continue to pour in when it rained. The roofer who came out to assess the leak a few days after it started applied lots of roofing cement to areas where rain was likely entering but that did not completely stop the leak so I hired another contractor to perform a major repair on October 12th. This involved installing a membrane over the area where water was ponding so badly along the step down roof including wrapping up over the siding and onto the roof above the siding (see attached photos). This was ***e to prevent any further leaking until I can get the roof replaced.

So, no, I do not accept Armadillo's offer--the siding up there is not even accessible anymore, and as I've said the consultant's report provides plenty of evidence that it was not the siding but the roof that was leaking. If that is Mr. *****'s final attempt at resolving this issue it is too little too late and I will see him in court.


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