Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/07/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  REMOVEDwas hired as a subcontractor to our General Contractor to frame, roof and side our garage. The roof was done in a manner that sunlight was coming through along where it met the house. the rafters installed were not secured and created the entire celling to shake. The roof joist was the same thickness as the roof beams which code calls for the ridge to be 20% thicker. The plans called for plywood to be used for the sheeting, but they used OSB sheeting for the roof and walls. The rear man door was installed in a way that it was not usable and when they "fixed" the door it was a complete hack job and did not seal all the way and took away from the integrity as they modified the header removing the REMOVEDstud support. The overhead garage door they used 1 REMOVEDplate when code calls for 2 2x4's for the REMOVEDplate. There were no visible lower REMOVEDanchor bolts holding the walls to the foundation, a code violation. The rafters installed were put onto the hurricane clips and/or the installer bent the clips back making them useless. The side of the garage is missing the facia. This project REMOVEDdid cost us another $32K to have another company come out and do the repairs so it would pass village inspection. Everything from the wall REMOVEDplates and headers had to come out and be redone including the entire roof and interior celling.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/02/2025

  We have responded.

   

  Please see attached. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/02/2025

   
  Complaint: 23437941
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The agreement supplied has a forged signature of mine. That is not how I sign a my signature. The certificate of completion was after the roof, door and rafters were fixed by Reliable Quality Construction, cost of $32k. The text she supplied was before I was told by the village the header was not ok and the header stud was loose. Screenshot from REMOVEDat Reliable Quality Construction letting me know the inspection passed, REMOVEDhad nothing to do with it. Contract even her copy says roof would be plywood but it was built with OSB. REMOVEDrefused to call our attorney to discuss what is owed to us.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  REMOVED

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/17/2025

  To Whom It May Concern:
  This letter serves as Roca Construction Inc.s (REMOVED) formal response to the allegations raised by Mr. REMOVEDthe project located at REMOVED, under the title Garage Restoration.
  1. Subcontractor Status and Lack of Privity
  Roca Construction was never directly contracted by Mr. REMOVED. Our role was strictly limited to that of a subcontractor under Chicago Waterproofing and Construction Corporation (REMOVED), the general contractor who held the direct contractual relationship with Mr. REMOVED. REMOVEDdid not negotiate, sign, or receive payment under any agreement with Mr. REMOVED. Accordingly, any claims or demands for reimbursement must be directed to REMOVED
  2. Completed Work and Partial Fulfillment
  It is important to clarify that REMOVEDdid complete a portion of the work requested by Mr. Menesesspecifically, the removal and replacement of the garage slab. This work was paid in full and was not the subject of any complaint or dispute. REMOVEDperformed this task professionally and in good faith, under the scope authorized by REMOVED
  3. Non-Payment and Project Interruption
  Roca has not been fully compensated by REMOVEDfor the labor and materials provided. We understand that Mr. Meneses failed to complete payment to CWC, which in turn led to a disruption in the project and non-payment to subcontractors, including REMOVED. REMOVEDcannot be held liable for delays or deficiencies resulting from upstream financial disputes or project abandonment by the general contractor.
  4. Unauthorized Use of REMOVEDLicense and Credentials
  We have reason to believe that after Roca ceased involvement in the project, Mr. Meneses may have continued to use REMOVEDcontractor registration and permit credentials to obtain approvals or pass inspections for work performed by a different contractor (e.g., Reliable Quality Construction). This constitutes a serious violation of Illinois Administrative Code Title 68, Section 124, and local municipal ordinances.
  It is unlawful to use a contractors license or company name without authorization for:
  Obtaining or amending permits
  Scheduling inspections
  Representing responsibility for construction work
  If Mr. Meneses used Rocas credentials to facilitate approvals for work REMOVEDdid not perform or authorize, this may constitute permit fraud, misrepresentation, and unauthorized use of a licensed entity.
  5. Violation of Local Building and Permit Laws
  In REMOVEDand the City of REMOVED, building permits must accurately reflect the contractor performing the work. If a different contractor took over the project, the permit should have been amended or reissued. Failure to do so may result in:
  Code violations
  Civil penalties
  Potential misdemeanor charges for falsifying permit information
  We are currently reviewing permit records and inspection logs to determine whether Rocas name or license was used without consent.
  6. Damage to Business Reputation
  Roca Construction has been the subject of negative reviews and complaints filed by Mr. Meneses with the REMOVED, Yelp, and the Better Business Bureau (BBB). These public statements misrepresent the facts of the project and falsely attribute responsibility to REMOVEDfor work it did not perform or oversee.
  We formally request that Mr. Meneses remove these defamatory reviews immediately. If not corrected, REMOVEDreserves the right to pursue legal remedies for reputational harm, including claims of defamation and commercial disparagement.
  7. Rocas Legal Position and Next Steps
  Given that:
  REMOVEDwas not directly contracted by Mr. REMOVED;
  REMOVEDcompleted and was paid for a portion of the work (garage slab);
  Roca has not been fully compensated by CWC;
  Rocas name and license may have been used without authorization; and
  Mr. Meneses has made public claims that damage Rocas reputation
  Roca Construction denies all liability for the claims presented and reserves all rights under Illinois law to protect its license, reputation, and legal standing.
  We recommend that any further inquiries or legal actions be directed to the appropriate party, Chicago Waterproofing and Construction Corporation, who held the contractual and managerial responsibility for this project.
  Should you require documentation regarding REMOVEDsubcontract, permit approvals, or communications with the county, we are prepared to cooperate through proper legal channels.
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/23/2025

   
  Complaint: 23437941
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Roca Construction was a subcontractor hired by REMOVEDto build our garage. In doing so they used subpar materials and built the garage in an unsafe manor with shotty work performed. Pervious pictures show bent hurricane clips, 1/2in OSB on the roof when it was supposed to be 1"plywood, wall sheeting was also 1/2 OBS not 1" plywood, roof was not sealed against the house, garage was missing facia and sub facia, door was installed incorrectly, roof ridge was not proper thickness to match the rafter's thickness. REMOVEDwas contracted by the REMOVED(REMOVED) to build the garage, if the materials were not what Thye were supposed to be then as professionals they should have stopped all work at that time and informed the REMOVEDbut instead REMOVEDdecided to continue to build the garage with the cheaper materials. REMOVEDstopped payment on one of their contractors which caused them to come back and install the ceiling joists improperly and damage the already installed hurricane clips. 

  REMOVEDclaims they had authorization from REMOVEDto remove and replace the slab, but that was a side deal Roca and I made because the bad slab CWC poured. If this repair was authorized by REMOVEDthen I would guess that REMOVEDand REMOVEDhad a predetermined plan to have Roca redo the bad work in order to get more money from us, not sure why else REMOVEDclaims they had CWC authorization to replace the slab. If REMOVEDdid the work for REMOVEDoriginally then that would mean the bad slab was also done by REMOVED. Which we paid an additional $16k to Roca to fix, directly to REMOVED. 

  CWC was paid in excess of $90k to complete this job. The relationship ended when REMOVEDwas found to have not installed rebar in the floor (or REMOVEDfirst attempt?) and the owner of REMOVEDthreatened to tear the garage down because he was not going to cut the floor to prove the rebar was in it. That was when we called the Kane County REMOVEDoffice to file a complaint. At that point REMOVEDclosed up shop. REMOVEDthen want to finish up the electrical work at a new cost to us. This was not acceptable as we had then found out the all the issues with the framing and roof that REMOVEDbuilt.  

  Kane county permit office was contacted on 1/24/25 informing them that REMOVEDwas not going to be completing the garage project due to shotty work performed, email sent to REMOVEDat the permits office informing of change of contractor. New contractor was hired on 2/7/25 and handled the permit change and inspections. 

  It is pretty sad that REMOVEDis claiming they did not have any fault in the poor craftsmanship or use of cheaper materials in this build but then make claims of false use of permits that they held for the project. This alone is admitting they built the garage and should own up to the poor craftsmanship and unsafe conditions they left this garage in to be used by our family and friends, as shown in the previous pictures. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  REMOVED