Sign up for our monthly consumer newsletter!

BBB Business Review

BBB Accredited Business since 10/10/1975

Walker Roofing Company

Phone: (651) 251-0910Fax: (651) 251-0916View Additional Phone Numbers2270 Capp Rd, Saint PaulMN 55114-1210 Send email to Walker Roofing Company

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since 10/10/1975

BBB has determined that Walker Roofing Company 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 Walker Roofing Company's rating include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 6 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.

Customer Complaints SummaryRead complaint details

6 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 0 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues1
Problems with Product / Service5
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints 6

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews Customer Reviews on Walker Roofing Company

Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience
Neutral Experience
Negative Experience
Total Customer Reviews 0 Customer Reviews

Complaint Breakdown by Resolution

Complaint Resolution Log (6)
03/17/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

The repair made was not necessary and I was charged for a $750 repair that ended up being an issue that could be resolved for under $50.

I had a leak in my ceiling due to damage on my roof. Not being the expert on roofs, I reached out to Walker Roofing for the repair. They provided a quote for the repair and I trusted them that they were confident in where the leak was coming from based on their experience.

The quote was two part: 750 for exterior repairs and 750 for interior repairs (those a estimates - I do not have the exact amount available at this time).

The day after they made the repair, it rained, and once again, water was leaking in to my kitchen. The contractor that was to repair the ceiling (arranged by Walker) was coming out the next day to fix the ceiling. I was told by **** that he would inform the contractor to examine where the water was coming from before he started any repairs; however, the contractor did not do that, and instead patched up the area. **** came back out to my house and explained that the issue wasn't actually what they repaired, but something to do with a cover on my roof and that they were going to temporary resolve the issue to see if that fixed the issue. The temporary resolve involved putting a black plastic bag over it. After the next rainfall, **** contacted me to see if the rain had come through. I informed him that based on what I can see, no, but that because the ceiling was resheetrocked I may not notice it right away. He stated that he would have someone come out and properly finish completing the 'repair' of the roof. No one ever came out and to my knowledge the only actual repair they did to the roof was the black plastic bag. When I voiced my frustration about paying $750 for something that wasn't even damaged the response I got back was, "well, it was in bad condition and you would have had to do it eventually".

Besides the fact that I paid $750 for a repair that I did not need to the roof, the contractor that repaired the ceiling had to come out twice. During his visit, he knicked my wall, left a dusty mess, painters tape was still on the wall after he left. Not to mention because **** and the contractor did not communicate regarding the fact that my roof was leaking again (after the first 'repair'), he had to come out twice, resulting in my having to miss work not just once, but twice, due to their miscommunication.

Desired Settlement
I am not asking for a complete refund as work was done, but I am seeking a refund of $350 because I was charged for a repair I didn't need on the exterior and the interior work, in my opinion, was not completed with the lack of clean up and damage to my wall.

Business Response
We have reviewed the file and will refund the customer her requested $350.00

09/04/2013Advertising / Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

TV ad offered $750 off full roof shingle repair. The company now denies this claim and only offered $500. I chose this company based on this TV ad.
In June we contacted several roofing companies for quotes to repair our hail damaged and leaking roof. Although not the cheapest we went with Walker based on our percieved reputation on their advertised claims and their TV ad touting a $750 discount on all full roofing repairs. The $750 was mentioned to the project manager during one of our face to face visits and again I left him a reminder voicemail message pertaining to this discount in July.

This job was to take a couple of weeks. Finally it seemed nearing completion early August at which time I called their office as I was not getting a call back from the Project Manager, questioning when an invoice would be received. I reminded the billing personel I was taking advantage of their $750 discount offer for the full roof installation. She replied that it was her job to make sure it got on our invoice. I finally received the invoice a week later and the discount was only $500. When I called back the Project Manager was placed on the line where he then claimed he was not aware of a TV ad for $750. Only a $500 off offer.

I've seen this advertisement on numerous occassions and the last time I would guess was in late July to early August.

Desired Settlement
I feel whoever handles Walker Roofings marketing review their TV commercials aired from June through August and verify that it DID make this claim of $750 off all full roof repairs and honor what they advertised.

Business' Initial Response
I arrange for the advertising offers and I have never had a offer for $750.00 The offers that we have ran on KSTP channel 5 and KARE 11, channel 11 and also Fox 9, channel 9 were all a $500.00 coupon. We ran the same commercial on all three stations. Our webstie also says the same. I am sorry that he confused us with another add or company. I have attached the documents from my sales reps at the stations explaining what the offers have been, so he can see that this is true. Thank you
**************, Mgr
Walker Roofing

Business' Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

07/11/2012Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Walker Roofing damaged my soffit when replacing my roof, and gave us the runn around and refused to properly rectify the situation.
Walker Roofing replaced our roof. The sales person was awesome, and the roof itself was done in a timely manner. The same day they had completed the work I noticed that there was a small section of soffit missing. We called the sales person and a few days later we were told that it had fallen off the roof when they were banging on it with hammers, and that the project manager had it and would replace it the following day when the final inspection was completed. A week later we still had no inspection, missing soffit and no one ever called to tell us they were not coming. We called again to find out what was going on, and were asked if we had thrown the soffit into the dumpster. If they had the soffit how could we have thrown it away? A week later they say it was damaged when a sheet of plywood gave out, and we had two options. They would replace it with something that will fit but won't match, or give us a small credit on our bill. It took over three weeks to finally get the hole covered with the busted up soffit, they went through multiple stories of how the damage happened, tried to blame us for the damage, NEVER let us know when they were not going to make appointments, and did not want to be up front about the situation. I would never use Walker Roofing again, and I recommend you never do either.

Desired Settlement
All im looking for is the replacement of the soffit for the front part of the house. If i ever want to sell it buyers will notice that part of the soffit looks different, and i do not want Walker Roofings mistakes to cost me money.

10/02/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Our roof was completed the end of June 2013. We still have some siding work that was to be completed but has never been done.
We have been trying since the end of June to get our siding job completed. We were told that they would be back in a couple weeks. We have called our contractor twice. The first time he did call back and stated he would be here the following week. He did not show up so we called him again. Still no response. We have a piece cut out of our siding on the side of the house so this has to be fixed before the weather gets bad. Very unsatisfied with this experience.

Desired Settlement
At this point we want the siding repaired for free or we will hire someone else to do this. Either way, we feel that we should not owe the additional amount that we owe this company due to the time that we have allowed for the job to be completed. Very unsatisified with how we have been treated.

Business Response
We have communicated with homeowner and will attempt to fix the siding for free. We will arrange to do this as soon as possible. We will communicate with homeowner about scheduling personally.

Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
My concern is the word "attempt". As a good faith effort, I did send Walker Roofing a letter along with a check in the amount of $894.68 which is 2/3 of the balance they are requesting.

We have requested a response to our letter and our siding fixed. As explained in our letter, we just want this resolved. We are three months out.

Now I want a good faith effort on Walker Roofing to get this completed. Once this is received, I will accept the response from Walker Roofing.

Final Business Response
We have returned and finished the siding repairs and will not be charging for this work. I have received confirmation that the work is completed from the homeowner last night that it is taken care of.

10/01/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Walker Roofing left us with a failed roof that is not to industry standards, not per the contract and left us with significant damage to our home.
We have incurred significant damage to our home while attempting to get the issue resolved with Walker. We have not heard back from them, which is a common theme in their complaints from others on this website. Working with them has been an example of unprofessionalism and the ultimate lack of communication.

Contract states: "We guarantee quality workmanship with our commitment to excellence and professionalism."
Violation of Contract:
1. Roof is not constructed with quality workmanship or a commitment to excellence.
2. A straight-edge or chalk line was never used during any of the construction resulting in gaps in insulation board and plywood.
3. Walker lacked professionalism throughout the project. Walker refused to send someone out to solve the issues or answer questions. Instead, they indicated "that you have to trust our workers who have ten years of experience." The day following the installation, Walker was to come back to install the scuppers and trim, and incorporate rubber membrane into existing system around the Home. Brian McConnell came over at 8:30 am, but did not knock on the door or ring the doorbell. Mr. McConnell was only on the roof for approximately forty seconds, not sufficient time to properly investigate the issues or perform the work.
4. There was no communication from Walker from the Wednesday through Monday after the installation of the membrane, at which time I had to contact the company.

Contract states: "Clean up and haul away all debris from the premises."
Violation of Contract:
The patio was not cleaned of cut wood scraps, saw dust, cedar shakes, and miscellaneous material.

Contract states: "Totally adhere a 60 mil EPDM rubber membrane roofing system over the entire specified area. Totally adhere using proper field adhesive."
Violation of Contract:
1. The installers did not do an appropriate job of budgeting their time for the project and, left without a supervisor, the work started to lag. Instead of finding an appropriate stopping point where the roof would be weather-tight, the installers rushed to complete the project. The installers failed to use enough glue to totally adhere the membrane. Additionally, they made mistakes with the membrane install, gluing down the membrane and then pulling up the material and gluing it again.
2. In a large area on the roof, the rubber membrane is not "totally adhered".

Contract states: "We offer you not only fair and competitive pricing, but also experienced, qualified personnel, and full-time supervision of the entire project."
Violation of Contract:
1. There was not a full-time supervisor watching over our project. Both installers denied they were the supervisors. When asked about various issues, we were told we would have to deal with the sales person - who was not onsite.
2. When Mr. McConnell sold the project, he explained that there would be three people on the project and it would take less than one day to complete the work. For most of the day, there were only two people working on the project. The third installer did not arrive until 4pm.

Contract states: "Install proper flashing to all walls, curbs, chimneys, etc., and any other protrusions extending up from the roof surface."
Violation of Contract:
1. Part of the rubber membrane was simply glued to wood as a tie-in to the home.
2. Areas were left exposed to the weather and siding was not replaced, which resulted in leaking and damage to the home.
3. Improperly sized scuppers were brought to the project and could not be used.
4. The rubber membrane was to be installed behind the cedar shake and tied into the existing wall system, which it was not.

Desired Settlement
Contract states: "Install one layer of 1/2 inch wood fiber roof insulation over the entire specified area."
Violation of Contract:
1. Wood fiber roof insulation was installed with gaps larger than 1/4", which is more than the manufacturer's minimum.
2. The spacing of fasteners is an issue with the City's building inspector. The City building inspector has indicated that he would not approve final inspection of the re-roof work because it does not meet the requirements of the building code or the manufacturer's specifications.

Contract states: "Install new pre-finished sheet metal counter flashing."
Violation of Contract:
1. Work is incomplete.
2. Color of the sheet metal flashing was communicated to three separate Walker employees.
3. The scuppers and tie-in material are not color-coordinated. Walker had nearly three weeks after signing the Contract before work had begun to be certain of color and size of the scuppers.

Contract states: "All workmanship done by Walker Roofing Inc., is guaranteed to pass *** local codes governing this property location."
Violation of Contract:
1. The City building inspector has stated that, without corrections, the roofing work will not pass final inspection on several issues.
2. The permit applied for by Walker acknowledges that the roof must be installed to manufacturer's specifications. The City has confirmed that the roof has not been so installed.
3. Walker failed to post the orange permit sign on site.

City inspector will not approve the work.
The City building inspector inspected the roof and noted a number of conditions that prevent it from passing final inspection, including:

1. A failure to install enough fasteners per 4' x 4' section of fiberboard per Firestone specifications.
2. The very clear fact that Walker pulled up and attempted to partially re-adhere a portion of the rubber membrane. The final product was never totally adhered.
3. The failure of seams needing to overlap a minimum of 3" as required by the Firestone specifications.
4. Lack of termination bar or RPF base tie-in attaching roof to home. According to the Firestone specifications, one of the two methods must be used. Instead, Walker simply glued the rubber membrane to the side of the home.

In addition to these issues, The City inspector also voiced concern regarding the debris under the rubber membrane. He also commented that the scuppers and drainage did not seem correct.

Walker's contract does not comply with Minnesota law.
First, as a licensed Residential Building Contractor, Walker is subject to Minnesota law requires a written contract for any work, and further requires that each such contract include:
1. A detailed summary of the services to be performed;
2. A description of the specific materials to be used; and
3. Written performance guidelines for the services to be performed, which must also be incorporated by reference in the agreement.

The contract does not include their license number and the law, it should. The contract contains no written performance standards, nor were any supplied. Walker's contract also violates Minnesota law by failing to include (and, in fact, attempting to disclaim and limit) the statutory home improvement warranties.

The result of my experience with Walker Roofing is a failed roof that must be replaced and over $10,000 in damages to my home. In addition, Walker roofing is demanding payment of $2540.00 for work that does not meet the contract, city inspection and is faulty. This company does not care about the quality of their work or their customers, despite what they say on their website. Be aware prior to hiring Walker Roofing for your project.

Business' Initial Response
We contracted to install a new roof on ***********'s garage.
We sent three journeyman roofers over to install the roofing as per
Contract. The roofers ran into bad decking in the middle of the roofing process. This work added unexpected hours to the project. Our contract involved installing sheet metal counter flashing to the outside edge of roof at the wall where the garage meets the house. The customer was asked to choose a color.
To date the color has not been chosen.

The customer's representative interfered and stopped the progress of the job.
We were ordered to stop the work and not allowed to finish the job. This in turn caused alleged interior damage to the interior of the garage. We were never allowed to see the reported leakage. We have not been allowed to finish
and to address his concerns, including the building inspectors concerns.

Customer's representative would not allow us to see the alleged damage, or
attempt to stop any further leakage.
The customer has already taken the situation up with the court system. We have no further recourse but to defend ourselves in court.
We are at a stand still if the customer will not let us finish the work or allow us
back on the property. The complaint is in regards to the unfinished work. The work was not finished. We are at a stand still because we will not remove the entire roof and replace it. We have not had the chance to finish the job so that it can be properly inspected by the city.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Walker Roofing has not addressed my complaint. Walker Roofing has refused to address any of the issues at any time. Walker Roofing have never attempted a resolution to this day. Walker Roofing informed us in writing a week after they walked away from the project that the roof was watertight even after several damages had already occurred. Walker Roofing refused to provide a supervisor and refused to provide direction to their employees. Walker Roofing employees refused to contact someone when asked by the customer. Walker Roofing was not available to answer questions as issues arose not only from the customer, but also their own employees.

Walker Roofing refused to provide a supervisor for the project and refused to send someone to the house when issues did arise. Walker Roofing employees were installing and uninstalling flashing because they did not understand the job and because a supervisor was not available. Walker Roofing employees were asking several questions to the customer about what needed to be done because they did not understand their job, were not given proper direction, did not have a work order and did not have a supervisor available to them. We, the customer, were forced to contact the office and speak with ***********, the manager, ourselves on numerous occasions during the day only to hear each time that "nothing was wrong", and "they know what they are doing", and "***** is not available to come out because he is working on a $100,000 project in Lakeville" even though we indicated that the quality of work was very poor.

Walker Roofing indicated in writing that the "roof is watertight" ONE WEEK after the installation and several severe storms passed ******* the area. Two of the workers also indicated that the roof was watertight at the end of the day. The manager, ***********, of Walker Roofing's comment to us after one week, "***** checked over the roof and it is watertight." ***** McConnell came to our house the morning following "installation" and stood on the roof for 40 seconds without ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, calling or emailing us knowing severe storms were approaching. Walker Roofing did not make a single attempt to contact us even though we had expressed so many concerns with the quality of work that was performed. My home obtained extensive water damage and other fatalities the day after Walker Roofing "installed" the membrane and they did not come back to complete the project the next morning as promised and knowing that the weather forecast indicated Severe Storms for the next five days. Several individuals have inspected the roof to include Professional Engineers, City Inspectors, Manufacturer's Representatives and several other roofers. All of the inspections have revealed that the roof is NOT installed correctly or to industry standards or to City Code or to Manufacturer's Specifications.. A couple of these individuals made comments like, "the roof is a disgrace to the industry", and "this roof was poorly installed".

Walker Roofing has NOT adhered to their contract, has NOT adhered to City Code, has NOT adhered to Manufacturer's Specifications and has NOT made any attempt to resolve their workmanship or any damages.. They have never once, after two months, tried to make any attempt for a resolution and will only indicate that there is nothing wrong with the roof although every other professional in the industry indicates otherwise.

Business' Final Response
We offered to return to finish the roof, but the only resolution that was acceptable to the homeowner was to tear off and start the roofing over. This was not necessary. The homeowner has filed this with her lawyer and is now in negotiations with our lawyers. We have no other choice at this point but to wait their resolution.

12/12/2012Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Walker roofing did not provide service as detailed on contract,did not promptly respond to safety concerns or other concerns of home ownner promptly.
On June 20, 2012, our household contacted Walker roofing to take care of a storm damaged roof. Walker responded within hours to place a tarp on the roof to mitigate further damage until a more definitive action was taken. Of note, Walker in 2007 had replaced our whole old roof and also replaced was our rain gutter system. Total cost for the project was $10,184. The job took 2 - 3 weeks. The few hiccups with this project were addressed with prompt phone calls from owner/manager.
Following insurance assessment in June 2012, we entered an agreement with Walker to replace the back roof, gutter and fascia. The insurance assessors was not able to look under the tarp that was placed over the dented shingles. He reiterated in no uncertain terms that it will be absolutely necessary for Walker roofing to contact the insurance immediately when unforeseen damage under the tarp or anywhere else is recognized and discuss the type of job necessary and the attendant cost before proceeding.
Walker roofing committed to complete the job for the estimate given by the insurance ($5022). Agreement was signed on July 13, 2012. I was asked to pay a 1/3 deposit and I paid $1700. I was told the work will start in ~ 2 weeks and take 2 - 3 weeks to complete.
There was NO COMMUNICATION from Walker by the end of July and so I called. Project started on Aug 1st. There was no call on that day or thereafter about new damage uncovered under the tarp or elsewhere. So I called Walker and was told that I or the insurance were NOT called since the damage was minimal.
The re-roofing and gutter part was done by Sept 12, 2012. The job went seamless except the five new roof vents were a different color from all the existing roof vents (dark brown vs. silver). After a week of calling back to request the vents get changed to silver, Walker left these as they were but replaced the existing vents to brown to match the color of the new ones. I was not pleased but there was more to deal with.
On Thursday 9/13/12, I got a call from Walker to inquire about my satisfaction with the project since it was done. That evening, I went to the backyard with my toddler to see the reportedly completed job. Walking back inside, my toddler's rubber clogs were clicking on the hardwood floor - two small nails were wedged at his right heel. I went back outside and saw numerous nails, pieces of shingle, strips of metal mostly in the surrounding grass and some on the deck. Nails were wedged between the planks of the deck. Also, numerous nails were left on the roof above the deck.
On morning of Friday 9/14/12, I called Walker office informing them of the debris and nails and described the incident with my son. The contract stated "...clean up and haul away all job related debris from the premises...the grounds will be cleaned up and we will magnet the property to pick up all nails. " I considered the nails to be a hazard to my family and requested immediate attention to this concern. No call back on that day. I called back again on Friday 9/14/12 to restate my case. By the afternoon of Saturday 9/15/12, it was apparent that I owned this problem. I started combing through the yard and by noon on Sunday 9/16/12, I had recovered over 80 nails and hand-picked small pieces of debris that filled 1/2 of a 13 gallon trash bag. I called Walker on Monday 9/17/12 to share my unhappiness with their clean up. It took 4 more days, 6 phone calls and 2 trips on two separate days from Walker to identify and clear up all the remaining visible nails.
On Sept 21st, I was FOR THE FIRST TIME INFORMED ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL COST of $1648 for repair and staining of the fascia. I was told the insurance has approved this job but that was not the case. I have since then been engaged in several phone calls between the insurance and Walker to resolve concerns. Insurance has made a final payment decision which Walker has not agreed with thereby demanding more payment from me.

Desired Settlement
I am very interested in paying Walker for the work they have done to the amount allowable by the insurance and adjusted for the work I had to do to mitigate safety concerns and address communications gaps that were not addressed by the company. There are two points of concern that need to be addressed with the settlement.

1.The most payment that Walker Roofing is owed would be the final amount approved by the insurance in the amount of $1086.87. However I raise my concern that Walker did not deliver on the service detailed in the contract and hence is not owed the whole amount (see #2) . The latest and modified total bill Walker sent to me for the WHOLE work is $6670.80. I have already paid $5022.30 as part of the initial contract agreement. The balance is $1648.50 - which is the amount Walker turned in to my insurance company. Of this, $474 of labor and $87 of materials (apparently no receipt given to insurance by Walker) were disallowed by the insurance. $1648 - $474 - $87 = $ 1086.87. This is based on Walker roofing's account of total amount owed and the final amount approved by insurance.

This decision was communicated in early October by insurance adjuster to Walker by e-mail that was copied to me detailing the reason for the adjustment and the final amount allowed of $1086.87. Despite this message, on Friday Oct 26, I got a phone message from the estimator/site supervisor requesting a prompt payment of $1648. I e-mailed Walker Roofing on Sunday Oct 28, 2012 stating my disappointment with the recent payment request and the whole service. I received an e-mail back from Walker that adjusted the amount I owe to $1337.10 explaining this amount by adding the initial assessment from June 2012 to the final and ONLY approved amount of $1086.87 from Oct 2012. Subsequent to this, 7 phone calls have been made to my home and/or cell phones by Walker in the first 2 weeks of November demanding payments above and beyond what has been approved by the insurance adjuster.

2. Walker Roofing should adjust the amount owed for the work that the company was supposed to do but did not do. I was obliged to do at least 25 hours of the company's work over the course of four months. While I don't expect Walker to compensate me for the hourly rate they have charged my insurance ($63/hr.), I need the company to put a reasonable effort towards this compromise that will recognize the weight of quality time that I as the customer had to invest when the company failed to deliver on the expected minimum service as stated on the contract - specifically linked to the clean up work and communication with the insurance company as detailed.

a) 14 hours of combing through the yard hand picking debris and nails, also dislodging nails from deck. I did this to mitigate any further hazard to my family since the company did not respond to the urgency of the condition over 2 days. I cleand up on Sept 15/16)

b) 3 total hours of work missed to stay home and assist the fascia staining crew match the color of old vs. new wood. At least three trips were made by the staining crew due to the challenge with matching the colors on first attempt. I expect this to have been duty of Walker roofing.

c) 5 total hours of disruption in my work over the course of this project for repeated phone calls to follow up on the lack of progress of work, request call back from supervisor on numerous occasions, argue for color change in roof vents, argue for staining for wood without $800 of additional cost as initially stated by Walker, plead for clearing of nails from yard, deck and roof promptly etc.

d.3 hours to communicate between Walker and the insurance adjuster to convince him to give Walker the benefit of doubt and consider their unapproved project after the fact.

e.ALL the roof vents are not the color of my preference. I am willing to forgo the request to return them back to the original color if other conditions are met.

Thank You.

Business' Initial Response
We have already attempted to reduce the bill for the problems that he had experienced with our firm. We apoligize for the inconveniance and will bring down his balance owned per his request to $1,086.00 If he other questions please call me back ************

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I appreciate the recognition by Walker that the customer was grossly inconvenienced by delays in the execution of the job and also due to plain incompleteness of the job. Yet the most concerning item on the performance of the firm is the safety concern raised by leaving nails all over the yard. While I don't expect a response to this specific issue, I will like Walker to recognize that their lackluster response to this serious concern was at the root of my unhappiness and subsequent actions. If the contract states that a magnet will be used to clean up the yard, then Walker should follow through with this promise. While the current near miss with my son may be easy to disregard as "no harm done", the firm should correct the cleaning up process as if the nails have punctured through the shoe and injured a child. In the unfortunate scenario that Walker does not change its practice, customers will need to know what they are signing up for.

I also appreciate the token effort "to reduce the bill for the problems that he had experienced with our firm." Despite this assertion, Walker proceeds to request the payment of $1086.00. This is actually the MOST AMOUNT THE FIRM WILL BE OWED IF NO ADJUSTMENTS WERE TO BE MADE AND I WAS TO PAY THEM IN FULL. I encourage Walker to refer to e-mail from my insurance adjuster dated Oct 10 detailing why he will DISSALLOW
$560 of the $1648 requested by Walker. On that e-mail to me, the adjusted did state that he will be communicating this with Walker as well. I have also called this insurance adjuster who went over in detial for the premise for his decision. I have DETAILED these reasons under (1) of initial complaint. Lest Walker has not looked at the e-mail from insurance adjuster, I have forwarded it to the communicants of the company today 12/5/12. The insurance adjuster welcomes a call from Walker if there is nterest in contesting these decisions or the final amount allowed.

By the facts stated on the initial communication and the clarification above, Walker's token adjustment of subtracting
$250 for my "problems" can come off ONLY ONE AMOUNT - $1086.87. THERE IS NO OTHER AMOUNT THAT MAKES SENSE IN THIS DISCUSSION GIVEN WHAT I HAVE REITERATED NUMEROUS TIMES. If Walker knows of a different amount, I need the information to counter what the insurance adjuster has stated on e-mail of Oct 10th. Again, calling the adjuster at the number and extension as stated on the e-mail I have forwarded to Walker may be a helpful exercise for the communicant.

I await a more sincere response from the firm.


Business' Final Response
We have tried several times to explain the insurance numbers to Mr. ******. He does not understand how the number worked with the supplements. We have talked with his insurance company and reviewed the number with them. They agree that what we have billed is correct. He did receive the initial insurance settlement for the repairs of $245.00
Then we supplemented for additional monies and settled for an additional $1086.10. For a total of $1331.10
So we have credited his account $245.10 for the
inconvenience and in consideration for his complaints. He did receive $1,331.10. We talked to ************* at American Family and she confirmed these numbers and she said she will contact Mr ****** to explain this to him. So we still have reduced his total due to us by $245.00. So his total due was $1331.10 and we credited him $245.10 off of that total. Which then leaves a balance of $1,086.00 Mr ****** does not understand that he did receive the $1331.10 and so he is askinf for us to credit off of $1,086.00. This would then make it a credit of $490.00. Please have him contact his insurance company they will review the totals with him.

Industry Comparison| Chart

Roofing Contractors, Soffit & Fascia, Snow Removal Service - Commercial, Snow Removal Service, Windows - Repairing, Windows - Vinyl, Windows, Windows & Doors - Installation & Service, Storm Windows & Doors, Doors, Windows - Installation & Service, Construction & Remodeling Services, Siding Contractors, Contractors - Gutters, Gutters & Downspouts, Contractors - General

Additional Information

BBB file opened: 10/01/1975Business started: 01/01/1938
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

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

These agencies may include:

Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
443 Lafayette Rd N
Saint Paul, MN 55155-4344
(651) 284-5005

Construction Codes and Licensing Division
443 Lafayette Rd N
Saint Paul, MN 55155-4344
(651) 284-5012

Business Management
Principal: Michael Kohler (President)Customer Contact: Stacy Reese (Office Manager)
Business Category

Roofing Contractors, Soffit & Fascia, Snow Removal Service - Commercial, Snow Removal Service, Windows - Repairing, Windows - Vinyl, Windows, Windows & Doors - Installation & Service, Storm Windows & Doors, Doors, Windows - Installation & Service, Construction & Remodeling Services, Siding Contractors, Contractors - Gutters, Gutters & Downspouts, Contractors - General

Products & Services

According to information provided by Walker Roofing Company, this company offers commercial and residential roofing contracting services.

BBB Program Participation
This company has agreed to use special procedures including arbitration, if necessary, to resolve disputes through their participation in the following programs: BBB Identification, BBBOnLine.
Industry Tips
Remodeling your home
Storm Damage Repair/Restoration

If you choose to do business with Walker Roofing Company, please let them know that you contacted BBB for a Business Review.

Photos & Videos


Select a thumbnail below to view the full-size image.

14 Photos

Map & Directions

Map & Directions

Address for Walker Roofing Company

2270 Capp Rd

Saint Paul, MN 55114-1210

To | From


1 Locations

  • 2270 Capp Rd 

    Saint Paul, MN 55114-1210(651) 251-0910
    Fax: (651) 251-0916

Industry Comparison ChartX

The information in the table below represents an industry comparison of businesses which are of the same relative size. This is based on BBB's database of businesses located in Minnesota and North Dakota. Businesses may engage in more than one type of business. The percent of time the business engages in a type of business is not accounted for. There is no known industry standard for the number of complaints a business can expect. The volume of business and number of transactions may have a bearing on the number of complaints received by BBB.

*Walker Roofing Company is in this range.


Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.


Additional Phone Numbers

  • (651) 642-1132
  • (612) 642-1132
  • (612) 729-2325
  • (612) 284-7046
  • (320) 241-9444

BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the company within two business days. The company will be asked to respond within 10 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the company's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.


Industry Tips for Roofing Contractors

Remodeling your home
Storm Damage Repair/Restoration

What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.


What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known government actions that are relevant to the business's marketplace dealings with the public.


About BBB Business Review Content and Services

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content and services in BBB Business Reviews. The additional content and services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release. Not all enhanced content and services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.


Thank you for your feedback.

Help us improve by taking our survey.


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.

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.

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.