Owens Corning warranty service will not participate with me to resolve roofing issues caused by incompetent platinum installer
In March of 2015 I had a Owens Corning Platinum I contractor install a new asphalt duration shingle roof. Several problems were quickly noticed and brought to the attention of the installer: ****** *********** Some of these problems included: misalignment of fixtures with roof deck holes, no drip edge, foreign material in shingles, missing granular, nail heats exposed, incomplete attachment of fixtures, incomplete bonding of shingle layers, gaps under leading edge of shingles and valley shingles unsealed.
The contractor was contacted of these problems but refused to acknowledge the issues, or send a representative to investigate. As an additional effort I contacted Owens Corning Warranty directly and the local BBB to file a complaint. The contractor made several irrelevant suggestions that would not acknowledge my concern and the BBB closed the case as unsatisfied.
Owens Corning Warranty sent a representative **** ***** who appeared to indicate there were problems with the shingles, but analysis of samples taken showed the shingles were acceptable and the fault was the installation.
Several problems have caused me to loose faith in the installer, in addition to their inability to properly install the shingles initially to include: showing up at the residence when requested not to, leaving property unsecured, inability to communicate the purpose of their actions, and after so many uncooperative exchanges a genuine fear of the original installer.
After communicating these issues of fear, Owens Corning Warranty has requested this original contractor to fix something. There has been no indication to the consumer what is to be fixed, or if the repairs are acceptable or complete. In addition I don't feel confident that an installer who could not install shingles correctly when the roof was taken down to the decking, that that same contractor can do an adequate and proper partial repair, or even the extent of the repair. The roof cost $12,000 using Owens Corning duration shingles.
As the repair of the roof would not involve a new roof I do not feel I am getting what I paid for, which was a new roof, not a roof repair.
Additional nail holes and stress to the roof should not have to be accepted by the home owner.
Owens Corning is willing to participate in the correcting of the customers roofing concerns. The customer needs to obtain an estimate from an Owens Corning Platinum or Preferred contractor to repair workmanship issues on his home. Once received Owens Corning will review and make a determination on next steps.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
While Owens Corning's offer to participate in the resolution of the problem presented by the consumer is encouraging in concept, it is lacking in commitment. They have not addressed the events of the issue to date, which have been filed with their warranty department. Specifically, the initial contractor, ****** ********** of Hamilton NJ, has after many requests by the consumer finally inspected the roof while the Owens Corning representative **** ***** was present. A resolution of the issues presented to the installer and the Owens Corning representative by the consumer were not provided. Instead, an email from the installer stated they would be repairing "all issues", but have not indicated what those issues are. A request to the Owens Corning Warranty department, to not have the repair conducted by the original contractor, for reasons delineated in the initial complaint were not responded to by the Owens Corning Warranty department, and the initial contractor has sent an email to the consumer requesting a time to complete "all repairs" as an indication they would be performing all the repairs, whatever they may be.
The problems with Owens Corning response and consumer's position are:
1. Issues with the roof, already witnessed by the original installer and the Owens Corning representative **** ***** have not been identified in writing to the consumer so that the extent of the Owens Corning company's acknowledged required repairs can be agreed upon, or would be agreed with after the additional inspection suggested by Owens Corning.
1.a. How will the outcome of the initial inspection be used to evaluate the subsequent inspection? What was the purpose to the initial inspection, are there no records? Is the installer to come and fix the unknown: "whatever", and be done with the issue.
2. Owens Corning, in their recommendation to the BBB complaint against them, has not indicated that the repair will be done by a company other than the original installer.
2.a. Consumer is afraid that the original company will cause further problems, either intentional of due to their incompetence as is evident in the initial roof installation.
3. Owens Corning has not addressed compensation for additional wear which will occur as a result of a repair that would not be required if the roof was installed properly.
3.a. Consumer has paid to have a job done correctly, with required disruption. Repairs could leave additional nail holes in roof, damaged decking, damage underlayment, interrupt the continuity of the underlayment, damage adjacent shingle when repairing intended shingle, weaken adhesion when replacing shingles.
4. Who is Owens Corning suggesting pay for the additional inspection?
4.a. Is the consumer expected to pay to have obvious installation failures identified? Was the initial inspection thorough and a report prepared on what needed to be done? Or was the installer to put on a "good show" by parading around the roof without a plan to repair.
5. Why is the inspection to be conducted by an Owen Corning platinum contractor?
5.a. Previous attempts to obtain an inspection by a different Owens Corning Platinum contractor, to identify the exact extent of poor workmanship were rejected by that contractor until after Owens Corning had done their inspection and determined findings. Is there collusion within the community to report only what is agreed upon?
An Owens Corning Platinum installer was selected by the consumer to capitalize on the Owens Corning investment in the quality installation of their product. My experience with the installation was that there is no quality control of the installer by Owens Corning,
Final Business Response
In an effort to satisfy all of the customers concerns Owens Corning will ask that one of our technical team inspectors come out to the home to identify areas of concern. This information once reported back to Owens Corning will be communicated to the customer. The customer is not obligated to use the original installer if they do not feel comfortable, however per the terms of the warranty they will have to use an Owens Corning Preferred or Platinum contractor for any repairs done. The customer will be contacted by an Owens Corning inspector to set a date in which this work will be done at no charge to the customer.
Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
There was an initial acknowledgement of problems with the installation of the roof. The specific problems were not identified nor was an agreement made as to the extent of the problems or how they were to be repaired. The original installer, who apparently was the cause of the problem, and the Owens Corning customer service department were apparently coordinating between themselves to address the issues without obtaining agreement with the consumer with regards to the identification of the problems, and therefore the repair of same.
The most recent suggestion by Owens Corning indicates that the problems will be mutually agreed upon, and repairs will be performed in a mutually agreed way so that the value of the installation will be maintained.
I am eagerly awaiting amicable resolution to this issue.