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

Tarrant County Roofing, LLC

Phone: (817) 583-3691 Fax: (817) 423-7295 View Additional Phone Numbers PO Box 164391, Fort Worth, TX 76161 http://www.tarrantcountyroofing.net



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


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Tarrant County Roofing, LLC 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 Tarrant County Roofing, LLC 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

58 Customer Reviews on Tarrant County Roofing, LLC
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 58
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 58

Additional Information

BBB file opened: December 22, 2010 Business started: 06/01/2009 in TX Business started locally: 06/01/2009 Business incorporated 11/16/2010 in TX
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Texas Department of Insurance
333 Guadalupe, Po Box 149104, Austin TX 78714
http://www.tdi.texas.gov
Phone Number: (800) 578-4677
ConsumerProtection@tdi.state.tx.us
The number is 1225395.

Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. Sam Marzili, Owner
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Sam Marzili, Owner
Business Category

Roofing Contractors Roof Structures Log Cabins, Homes & Buildings Roofing Materials Roofing Equipment & Supplies

Products & Services

Tarrant County Roofing, LLC sells the following brand(s): CertainTeed, Decra, Firestone, Firestone, GAF, Malarkey, McElroy Metal, Modified Bitumen, Mueller Metal, Owens Corning, Tamco, TPO

Tarrant County Roofing, LLC offers the following product(s): Composition Shingled Roofing Systems, Decra Roofing Systems, Flat Roofing Systems', Metal Roofing Systems

Method(s) of Payment

Check

Money Order

Industry Tips
Roofing

Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Summary

Tarrant County Roofing, LLC has received 0 out of 5 stars based on 0 Customer Reviews and a BBB Rating of A+.

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

Additional Locations

  • PO Box 164391

    Fort Worth, TX 76161

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)

5/19/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have four major complaints against this company. They are the following: 1. Improper job performance 2. Breach of contract 3. Misrepresentation of work performed 4. Deceptive contracting and execution of the contract, predisposing me to committing insurance fraud. The improper job performance relates to installation of roof shingles over areas of construction gaps between the decking and fascia (up to 2 inches wide in some areas) despite prior knowledge of the problem. There was a breach of contract on two accounts. The first was failure to install new decking limited to a small area in the front of the house where a raccoon had chewed into it, using the construction gap as a starting point. The second breach was the company's refusal of the RIGHT-TO-CURE extended to it. There was misrepresentation of part of the work in the form of a photograph of a focal section of new decking installed on a roof sent to me as an attachment to a text message. The photo was not of my roof though, later borne out by an inspection which I had performed after the job was done, showing that the damaged area had only been repaired with a small piece of flashing. The contracting was deceptive in that the company did not charge me for drip edge which it did not install under the pretext of helping me out with part of my 1% deductible. The owner of Tarrant County roofing had reviewed the summary from Nationwide and knew they were allowing for drip edge. Failure on my part to utilize the funds for that purpose would be fraudulent on my part. The company owner also asked me to sign a form to request an additional $161 to cover 30-pound felt, instead of the 15-pound material that it had allowed for. He was later going to use that form to request $11,096.90 from the insurance company, even though he knew Nationwide had already cut me a check for the roof less the depreciation. Upon my insistence he did not submit the request though.

Desired Settlement: 1. I would like a refund for the cost for another contractor to remove and replace the shingles necessary for the proper installation of trip edge to close construction gaps. The refund should be based on an estimate I have accepted. 2. I would like a refund of $285 which is what I paid to have a contractor inspect the roof and take picture showing the workmanship issues involving the perimeter of the roof after the job had been completed. 3. I would like for the five-year workmanship warranty for the roof installation performed by Tarrant County roofing to remain in effect as stipulated in the contract.

BBB Response:

 

On February 25, 2016 ****** ******* contacted me regarding an estimate for damage to his housed caused by raccoons.  In inspected his house and determined that he had more than raccoon issues.  He had hail damage and needed a new roof.  A gave Mr. ******* an estimate to repair the area of raccoon damage.  Mr. ******* contacted his insurance company and they inspected the roof.  Note: I was not present during the inspection.  Upon learning that Nationwide agreed with the fact that Mr. ******* did indeed have hail damage they provided Mr. ******* an estimate for a new roof.  Mr. ******* then contacted me and asked for an estimate for a new roof.  I provided the estimate and several days later Mr. ******* contacted me and wanted to move forward with replacing the roof.  We met and signed a contract based on my estimate.  I did review his insurance paperwork and noticed the only item that his adjuster overlooked was 30lb felt vs 15lb.  I explained that I allocated 30lb in my estimate however, I would supplement Nationwide for the difference and he would collect that difference since I already charged him for the difference.  He agreed and signed a contract for the roof only, scheduled the work, and on scheduled the roof.  Mr. ******* paid to upgrade his shingles to a better quality roof, remove one of his vents, and install two additional vents which are in the contract price and on my estimate prior to accepting the contract.  The roof was upgraded and replaced along with removing/replacing the wood where the raccoons chewed through the decking.  (I did provide photos to Mr. ******* before we started the project, during the insulation process, and photos after the work was completed.)

 

Upon completion I met with Mr. ******* and was going to collect a check after our walk through.  He noticed there was an area that concerned him behind the guttering above his garage.  I grabbed the ladder and inspected.  After both of us going up on the ladder there were fascia issues which were still present.  (note part of the roofing system).  We also noticed some nails in the guttering above the garage.  Mr. ******* and I sat down to complete the completion form and he attempted to write me a check however, I insisted to wait until we cleaned the guttering of nails which he agreed.  The next day my foreman took care of cleaning of the guttering with Mr. ******* present.  My foreman explained that there were no issues related to the roofing system.  In the next several days Mr. ******* had several contractors out to inspect the exterior and roof.  A few days later Mr. ******* informed me that he had not had drip edge around his dwelling.  I inspected his roof and took several photos proving that he indeed had drip edge.  Mr. ******* then insisted that the drip edge was not installed incorrectly.  I explained that I didn’t charge him for any drip edge and we didn’t replace any drip edge.  A few days later he contacted me insisting that we had not removed/replaced the area where raccoons chewed his decking.  I informed him we had and even provided a photo to prove it.  We went back and forth for several days.  I informed Mr. ******* that we had completed the project and I needed to collect payment.  Mr. ******* insisted that he would not pay me until a series of “test” were completed.  Number 1 the rain test…..Number 2 an inspection from the city approving our work….Number 3 an inspection from another contractor stating our work was acceptable….

 

Several weeks went by and number 1 and 3 passed.  Mr. ******* paid for his own inspector to check the quality of work and agreed that the roofing system had no issues.  Mr. ******* then refused to pay because we didn’t provide a permit for the project.  I explained that the City of Benbrook didn’t require a permit for roofing accept in the situation of us needing to re-deck the entire roof.  He didn’t agree. 

Mr. ******* then filed a complaint with the Good Contractors List.  They took his statement and mine as well and didn’t feel there were any issues and closed things out on their end.   Within the next few weeks I attempted to resolve the issue by agreeing to pay to remove/replace the existing drip edge as a customer service however in order to complete this task the guttering would have to be detached and reset.  I even wrote an estimate to do this for Mr. ******* and his insurance company agreed that they owed to detach/reset his guttering and paid him to do so.  Again I had nothing in our contract or estimate to do anything with the drip edge.  Mr. ******* drew up his on contracts, contingency agreements, definitions of what he expected, and insisted on my signing several items that I didn’t feel comfortable singing.  He wanted to upgrade his drip edge, paint the new drip edge, and have me guarantee that he would never have any further issues with raccoons which I could never guarantee.  At that point I offered Mr. ******* a credit of $400.00 again as a customer service and move on.  Several days later I received a check in the mail for the original amount agreed to by Mr. *******.  Several days after that I learned about the complaint.

 

 

I will provide a copy of the original estimate, original contract, the insurance companies paperwork, all email correspondence between Mr. ******* and I, photos before, during, and after the project was completed, and a copy of the check showing Mr. ******* paid us in full.

 

The issues Mr. ******* is concerned with are not related to the roofing system that was installed.  Mr. ******* has had Gutting/gutter guards, fascia/siding, and painting work completed and all 3 trades Mr. ******* has had issues with their work and has yet to get any of the prior contractors to come back and address any of his issues.  It appears now that he is finding issues with the roofing system even though the own contractor he paid to check our work has found no roofing related issues….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam *******

Tarrant County Roofing (Owner)

 

 

Consumer Response:

 

MESSAGE FROM BBB - attachments cited below will arrive in separate emails.

 Here is my response to Tarrant County Roofing response to complaint ID 11397581.  I have split it into two messages so all the attachments fit.

 

Zip file attachment (1) contains pictures of my damaged deck and the adjacent construction gap which was all pointed out and seen by Mr. ******* when he came out and looked at the job on Saturday, March 5, 2016, not the date he reported. Attachments (2) and (3) are copies of the original written estimate and the contract I signed on March 18, 2016. The contract states that all work will be completed based on the estimate. The estimate states “Repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking.” The zip file attachment (5) shows photos taken by the contractor that I paid to inspect the job after the new roof was installed. These pictures show a patch repair of the damaged area of decking with a small piece of metal flashing. They don’t show that any new decking had been installed. They also show the significant construction gap between the decking and fascia.

 

Zip file attachments (6) & (7) show construction defects in other areas of the perimeter that were just roofed over. See next e-mail because of attachment size limit has been reached. 

 

Zip attachments (8), (9) and (10) depict other workmanship defects with the installation job, but the one most concerning is the construction gaps between the decking and fascia (up to 2 inches in some points) overlaid with shingles. I feel this will cause me to have additional problems at some point in the future with critters damaging shingles to access the gap and chew into the decking. I explained this to Mr. ******* prior to him beginning the work, but at no point have I requested assurance from him that I will not have a recurrent problem of this type.  A pest control company had already told me that if the gap is properly closed with metal edging I won’t. 

 

With respect to payment, when Mr. ******* initially told me to defer paying him on March 21, 2016 immediately after the roof had been installed because he needed his crew to come back out and do a proper cleanup, he said he would collect payment the following day. Before noon on March 22, 2016 he informed me via e-mail text message that he would come around 6:00 PM to collect payment. Later in the afternoon he called me and said it would be after 8 PM. At that point I instructed him to just wait until Wednesday or Thursday (i.e. March 23 or 24). He expressed relief and said that would work much better for him also. Those two days came and went though, and I never heard from him until March 26, 2016 when I was out shopping and he called me on my cell phone inquiring about payment for his services. I don’t know for sure, but he might have been at my house.

 

At this point I was beginning to feel very uneasy about the way business was being conducted. I called the city of Benbrook Department of Permits and Inspections on March 28, 2016 and asked if a permit is required for any type of deck replacement work, even if it is not the whole deck.  I was told yes.  I informed them that a roofing contractor had purportedly replaced part of my deck, and asked if they had a permit number for my address. They informed me they did not.  They asked me for the contractor’s name and telephone number which I provided them. At this time I had not yet had my roof inspected and did not know new decking had not been replaced in the damaged area. 

 

Attachment (4) is a picture of an area of new deck which Mr. ******* sent me via a text message on March 26, 2016 after I questioned him as to whether not the damaged area of decking had actually been replaced with new decking as he had stated he would do. I cannot identify the roof in that picture as mine though, particularly since mine has gutters including in the area that needed repair as depicted in the photos of Zip file (1) attached to the previous e-mail message. 

 

My efforts to obtain Mr. *******’s cooperation in curing the workmanship issues with the roof installation were topsy-turvy and variable. He initially verbally agreed to install drip edge using custom flashing to close the construction gaps with the understanding that I would pay for the installation and any costs for the metal edging that exceeded what the insurance company allowed, but not for removal and replacement of shingles if necessary.  He came to my home on April 5, 2016 and took pictures of the roof, but they were of areas and/or from angles that don’t reveal the workmanship issues of the roof installation along the perimeter. He submitted a supplement to my insurance company on April 5, 2016 (See attachment (11)) to cover the gutter detachment and resetting necessary to perform the job properly, but my adjuster denied it because she felt the charges were excessive. She did approve a supplement from a different contractor whose charges were more reasonable, and adjusted my project allowance accordingly (see attachment (12).  As Mr. ******* pointed out, I have received that payment but have not cashed the check nor do I intend to until the services have been performed.

 

In the wake of the denial of his supplement Mr. ******* still verbally agreed to do the work but said I would have to use my own gutter contractor because his would not be available.

 

During a telephone conversation with Mr. ******* on April 9, 2016 I asked him to draw up a contract that we would mutually sign agreeing to do the drip edge work if I coordinated the gutter work. His response was I was putting him through too many hoops. He later sent me an e-mail message on April 9, 2016 suggesting that I use my own contractor and that to put this behind us he would deduct $400 from the invoice for removal and replacement of shingles necessary for the drip edge installation.

 

The contractor I was planning to use though gave me a quote of $1,956.00 to remove and replace a starter strip and two rows of shingles to do the custom drip edge work.  I sent Mr. ******* an e-mail message on April 10, 2015 stating that he was $1,556 short on what he was willing to allow based on what I would have to pay to have the work redone. I informed him that I thought that contractor’s charges were a little steep and that I would continue to obtain other estimates in an attempt to get the work done at a more reasonable cost.

 

In the meantime I created a contract and invoice template for Mr. ******* to enter his charges and make changes in the wording that was mutually agreeable (see attachments (13) & (14)) if he was still willing to do the work. I e-mailed them to him on April 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM. His response to that e-mail message shortly after midnight the following day was "I need a few days to get back to you." Later that day though at 9:32 PM I received a response from him stating the following:


“I expect to be paid in full for the work “preformed.”  I am not agreeing to what you have proposed. Again, we have completed the project in full based on the signed contract.”

 

At this point after realizing the futility of my attempts to obtain good faith dealings I sent a check to Tarrant County Roofing via certified mail on April 12, 2016 for $7670.00 representing payment in full for the job (see attachment (15). The check cleared my bank on April 15, 2016. The date I mailed payment to him was twelve days after I received his invoice.

 

In addition to my concerns about workmanship issues and Mr. *******’s failure to cure, even though the opportunity was extended to him, the delay in payment was partially due to his reluctance to send me an itemized invoice which I requested more than once for insurance and income tax purposes. After I informed him that he could send me a general invoice if he felt uncomfortable itemizing it he did eventually send me invoices (attachments 16 and 17) along with a copy of the contract (attachment 18) and an itemized estimate (attachment 19) via e-mail on March 30, 2016 at 10:53 PM. The invoice does not reflect that any deck repair was performed. The itemized estimate appears to be a revision of the original with charges entered subsequently. It lists “repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking” which was not done.

 

In response to Mr. *******’s assertion, on March 28, 2016 I did make a call to The Good Contractors List where his company is listed. The purpose of my call which I stated to the representative (Melody) with whom I spoke was to enlist their mediation resolving the problems I felt existed with the work and Mr. *******’s modus operandi. The nature of the call was not one of a complaint but an attempt to utilize the service they advertise on their website – that is mediation between customers and contractors for work-related disputes and a $10,000.00 guaranteed backing of their contractors’ work.  Melody informed me that she would get Mr. ******’s side of the story and get back with me. To date I have had no response from The Good Contractors List.

 

I am willing at your request to forward to the Bureau any and all available e-mail correspondence between me and Mr. ******* that might provide additional clarification.

 

Regards,


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




Business Response:

[Message from BBB: Standard type is the previous rebuttal from the consumer. Text in italics is the most recent business response.]

Zip file attachment (1) contains pictures of my damaged deck and the adjacent construction gap which was all pointed out and seen by Mr. ******* when he came out and looked at the job on Saturday, March 5, 2016, not the date he reported. Attachments (2) and (3) are copies of the original written estimate and the contract I signed on March 18, 2016. The contract states that all work will be completed based on the estimate. The estimate states “Repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking.” The zip file attachment (5) shows photos taken by the contractor that I paid to inspect the job after the new roof was installed.  These pictures show a patch repair of the damaged area of decking with a small piece of metal flashing. They don’t show that any new decking had been installed. They also show the significant construction gap between the decking and fascia.

 

It is clear that the damage in Photos 1,2, and 3 is no longer present.  If it were the evidence would be quite clear and photos would show, we didn’t replace the decking.  I have yet to see any photos showing the decking was not replaced over the front door.  We only replaced a partial piece of drip edge where is where the old wood was cut out and replaced with new wood.  The wood was cut the same length and width as the existing wood otherwise there would be overhang and the water would not run into the guttering like the water is supposed to do.

The estimate specifically states “repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking”.  This was completed.  I see no other issues with the 1st point.

 

 

Zip file attachments (6) & (7) show construction defects in other areas of the perimeter that were just roofed over.  See next e-mail because of attachment size limit has been reached. 

 

We were paid to roof this house.  We were not paid to repair or replace the “construction defects”.  I feel this speaks for itself here.

 

Zip attachments (8), (9) and (10) depict other workmanship defects with the installation job, but the one most concerning is the construction gaps between the decking and fascia (up to 2 inches in some points) overlaid with shingles. I feel this will cause me to have additional problems at some point in the future with critters damaging shingles to access the gap and chew into the decking. I explained this to Mr. ******* prior to him beginning the work, but at no point have I requested assurance from him that I will not have a recurrent problem of this type.  A pest control company had already told me that if the gap is properly closed with metal edging I won’t. 

“I feel this will cause me to have additional problems”.  Again an opinion.  The shingles are supposed to be installed to overhang just like they were before.  The photos sent in support there is no additional overhang from that of the initial roof installation.

Again the small piece of drip edge that was missing under the area where the animals was replaced therefore, there should no other issues.  “what if’s” will get us nowhere.  If an animal wants into a house it will find its way in.

 

With respect to payment, when Mr. ******* initially told me to defer paying him on March 21, 2016 immediately after the roof had been installed because he needed his crew to come back out and do a proper cleanup, he said he would collect payment the following day. Before noon on March 22, 2016 he informed me via e-mail text message that he would come around 6:00 PM to collect payment. Later in the afternoon he called me and said it would be after 8 PM. At that point I instructed him to just wait until Wednesday or Thursday (i.e. March 23 or 24). He expressed relief and said that would work much better for him also. Those two days came and went though, and I never heard from him until March 26, 2016 when I was out shopping and he called me on my cell phone inquiring about payment for his services. I don’t know for sure, but he might have been at my house.

 

There was a small amount of debris left in the front section of guttering.  Again I refused to accept payment until the guttering was cleaned out.  I do not see any issue here.

Yes, I was late on the 22nd to collect a payment.  Not sure what I can say here other than yes I was late.  I have never had a customer upset because of me not collecting payment on a specific time.  We are all human and humans run late from time to time.  I am not sure what else to say here.  

 

At this point I was beginning to feel very uneasy about the way business was being conducted. I called the city of Benbrook Department of Permits and Inspections on March 28, 2016 and asked if a permit is required for any type of deck replacement work, even if it is not the whole deck.  I was told yes.  I informed them that a roofing contractor had purportedly replaced part of my deck, and asked if they had a permit number for my address. They informed me they did not.  They asked me for the contractor’s name and telephone number which I provided them. At this time I had not yet had my roof inspected and did not know new decking had not been replaced in the damaged area. 

 

I will forward the email from the City of Benbrook clearly stating a permit wasn’t/isn’t required like I had stated in the beginning.
Mr. ******* can take that issue up with the city. 

 

Attachment (4) is a picture of an area of new deck which Mr. ******* sent me via a text message on March 26, 2016 after I questioned him as to whether not the damaged area of decking had actually been replaced with new decking as he had stated he would do. I cannot identify the roof in that picture as mine though, particularly since mine has gutters including in the area that needed repair as depicted in the photos of Zip file (1) attached to the previous e-mail message. 

 

Does the decking over the front porch look like the first 3 photos sent by Mr. *******?

No.  This could only mean that we removed/replaced the decking in that area.   

 

My efforts to obtain Mr. *******’s cooperation in curing the workmanship issues with the roof installation were topsy-turvy and variable. He initially verbally agreed to install drip edge using custom flashing to close the construction gaps with the understanding that I would pay for the installation and any costs for the metal edging that exceeded what the insurance company allowed, but not for removal and replacement of shingles if necessary.  He came to my home on April 5, 2016 and took pictures of the roof, but they were of areas and/or from angles that don’t reveal the workmanship issues of the roof installation along the perimeter. He submitted a supplement to my insurance company on April 5, 2016 (See attachment (11)) to cover the gutter detachment and resetting necessary to perform the job properly, but my adjuster denied it because she felt the charges were excessive. She did approve a supplement from a different contractor whose charges were more reasonable, and adjusted my project allowance accordingly (see attachment (12).  As Mr. ******* pointed out, I have received that payment but have not cashed the check nor do I intend to until the services have been performed.

 

I did state we could remove/replace the guttering and drip edge and Mr. ******* agreed to pay for it as well since it was not part of the estimate or contract.  Why would Mr. ******* agree to pay for something if it was something that we were supposed to do initially?  As discussed earlier Mr. ******* wanted me to sign a contract that he put together and had many stipulations to make the project much more difficult than it needed to be.  He then wanted to add “custom metal edging, painting of the drip edge, ect.”.  The contract that Mr. ******* wanted me to sign was unreasonable.

I did complete an estimate for Mr. ******* insurance company.  I use the exact same estimating software as Liberty Mutual.  I cannot see how my pricing was “excessive”.  First I have heard of this as well.

 

In the wake of the denial of his supplement Mr. ******* still verbally agreed to do the work but said I would have to use my own gutter contractor because his would not be available.

 

I use sub-contractors.  This means they do not work directly for me.  If they are unavailable, then they are unavailable.  What more can I do?

 

During a telephone conversation with Mr. ******* on April 9, 2016 I asked him to draw up a contract that we would mutually sign agreeing to do the drip edge work if I coordinated the gutter work. His response was I was putting him through too many hoops. He later sent me an e-mail message on April 9, 2016 suggesting that I use my own contractor and that to put this behind us he would deduct $400 from the invoice for removal and replacement of shingles necessary for the drip edge installation.

 

I have already answered the above.  I offered $400.00 as a customer service only.

 

The contractor I was planning to use though gave me a quote of $1,956.00 to remove and replace a starter strip and two rows of shingles to do the custom drip edge work.  I sent Mr. ******* an e-mail message on April 10, 2015 stating that he was $1,556 short on what he was willing to allow based on what I would have to pay to have the work redone. I informed him that I thought that contractor’s charges were a little steep and that I would continue to obtain other estimates in an attempt to get the work done at a more reasonable cost.

 

In the meantime I created a contract and invoice template for Mr. ******* to enter his charges and make changes in the wording that was mutually agreeable (see attachments (13) & (14)) if he was still willing to do the work. I e-mailed them to him on April 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM.  His response to that e-mail message shortly after midnight the following day was "I need a few days to get back to you." Later that day though at 9:32 PM I received a response from him stating the following:

“I expect to be paid in full for the work “preformed.”  I am not agreeing to what you have proposed. Again, we have completed the project in full based on the signed contract.”

 

The contract and estimate template was not written by me.  It was written by Mr. ******* and again unreasonable.  Yes, the charges were not in line with what it would actually cost to do the work that Mr. ******* was requesting.  As I stated before these issues were not part of the contract or estimate.

I did take two days to consult with a lawyer.  After the lawyer reviewed all the documentation, emails, photos, contract, ect. There was no need to go any further.  I feel I have proved that we did the work as stated in the contract.  All the additional work Mr. ******* is requesting is over and beyond what we contracted to do.

 

At this point after realizing the futility of my attempts to obtain good faith dealings I sent a check to Tarrant County Roofing via certified mail on April 12, 2016 for $7670.00 representing payment in full for the job (see attachment (15). The check cleared my bank on April 15, 2016. The date I mailed payment to him was twelve days after I received his invoice.

 

In addition to my concerns about workmanship issues and Mr. *******’s failure to cure, even though the opportunity was extended to him, the delay in payment was partially due to his reluctance to send me an itemized invoice which I requested more than once for insurance and income tax purposes. After I informed him that he could send me a general invoice if he felt uncomfortable itemizing it he did eventually send me invoices (attachments 16 and 17) along with a copy of the contract (attachment 18) and an itemized estimate (attachment 19) via e-mail on March 30, 2016 at 10:53 PM. The invoice does not reflect that any deck repair was performed. The itemized estimate appears to be a revision of the original with charges entered subsequently. It lists “repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking” which was not done.

 

There is no work to “cure”.  Think I have proven this point many times.  It appears I left off the $125.00 decking repair on the invoice.  It is clear I charged for it and it is clear that the decking over the front door was replaced.  If Mr. ******* would like me to add it to the invoice, I will be happy to do this for him.  Just because I didn’t put it on the invoice doesn’t mean I didn’t do the repair.  I have already send in an itemized invoice.  Its exactly the same as that of what the insurance company uses.  I don’t know what else I can do to make it any clearer here.

 

In response to Mr. *******’s assertion, on March 28, 2016 I did make a call to The Good Contractors List where his company is listed. The purpose of my call which I stated to the representative (Melody) with whom I spoke was to enlist their mediation resolving the problems I felt existed with the work and Mr. *******’s modus operandi. The nature of the call was not one of a complaint but an attempt to utilize the service they advertise on their website – that is mediation between customers and contractors for work-related disputes and a $10,000.00 guaranteed backing of their contractors’ work.  Melody informed me that she would get Mr. ******’s side of the story and get back with me. To date I have had no response from The Good Contractors List.

 

The Good Contractors List reviewed and informed me there was no case here.  They have everything that I had a lawyer look at and also feel that I did the work stated in the signed contact by Mr. *******. All the items mentioned in the original complaint are not roofing related.  In Mr. ******* own words construction defect, fascia, construction gaps, guttering, ect.  None of these items are roofing related.
There is no case here.


Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

58 Customer Reviews on Tarrant County Roofing, LLC
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)
Fusion Chart
Fusion Chart