ComplaintsforBrad Smith Roofing Co. Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  01/14/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Experiencing a leak around my chimney in Sept of 2020, I contacted Brad Smith Roofing regarding repairs, and accepted their proposal for $1,740.00. Work began in May of 2021. An issue with the underlying masonry was discovered, and BS proposed a deck-up chimney rebuild for $10,460.00, and amount more than 3 times taht of a similar quote I had received within the last 5 years. BS also proposed an cheaper alternative, but this work would not include their "...usual guarantee." I had a masonry contractor replace deteriorated bricks an parge the surface suitable for flashing. I advised ** ******* when this work was completed that they could 1) Accept the repair as suitable for their work with their "usual guarantee", or 2) We settle for time and material to date, and I continue with someone else. Immediately after completion a serious leak accompanied the very next storm (Sept of 2021); ** ******* found an faulty caulk seam and repaired it. Winter ensued, and the next rainy season in August 2022 the roof leaked more severely than ever before, and exactly where it had leaked before (the roof only ever leaked in strong rain events). ** ******* claims they did "quality work", and submits a proposal for $525.00 to fix the leak that I had already paid them $1,740.00 to fix. Now I get tales of their "quality work", and explanations that leak repairs cannot be guaranteed, even as I hold memoranda referencing their guarantee. I paid a load of money for a leak repair, and while I will acknowledge that they did in fact work on my chimney/roof, it would seem that I got nothing for my money that was necessary to, or had anything to do with repairing the leak. From ** ******* all I get at this point is BS!

  

  Business response

  02/01/2023

  The customer contracted with us for a chimney flashing repair, which in the process of the repair we recommended a chimney re-build due to the deterioration of the bricks. We waterproofed the chimney flashing until BSR and the customer could re-evaluate. We sent the customer a proposal to do the chimney re-build work as we recommended, he then chose to contract that work with a different contractor/mason. After the chimney re-build was completed, we then finished the chimney flashing repair work.
  
  *In the last email to the customer on 8/23/22 we suggested he get back to us on the mason’s going out to inspect (and we were happy to meet him out there on-site). We had not heard anything since then until this complaint.
  
  **If there is a concern with BSR work performed for this customer, we will stand behind the guarantee. Our process if there is a possible issue: the customer has to call our main office phone number and report the problem, BSR will schedule an appointment time to come out to inspect, then once inspected and confirmed it is a BSR workmanship issue, BSR will correct under our workmanship guarantee for 10 years. Note: this may take multiple trips to inspect, water-test the area in question, evaluate, etc.
  
  At the last visit, our workmanship showed no deficiencies as Dan stated in his emails and the next step was as he mentioned we would be happy to meet his mason on-site and review, water-test, etc. If the mason will not meet us there, we will be happy to evaluate on our own again.
  
  Summary of Events (more detailed timeline attached)
  
  6/08/21 – BSR work completed
  
  7/03/21 – Customer Paid invoice
  
  10/08/21 – BSR was out to inspect chimney flashing for a leak
  
  11/02/21 – BSR performed work under guarantee at no charge
  
  8/09/22 – BSR was out to inspect chimney flashing for a leak, found no deficiencies with BSR work. Provided customer an estimate for other issues found.
  
  8/11/22 – BSR sent proposal
  
  8/11/22 to 8/23/22 – multiple emails communicated back & forth between BSR and the customer... the customer has since not called us back, no known issue until this complaint

  

  Business response

  02/17/2023

  Customer Note #1
  The response from ** ******* distort the facts considerably: ** ******* was contracted to FIX A LEAK,
  and pursuant to that objective they did a flashing job that did nothing to stop the leak.

  Company response: Our company name is not ** *******, it is **** ***** ******** We object to the
  statement that we have distorted any facts with this customer. We have responded to all of this
  customers questions, concerns, phone calls, emails in a strictly professional manner. As a long-standing
  business in the Cleveland area and roofing industry, we feel we followed our contract that the customer
  signed and agreed to on 10/14/2020.

  When our crew arrived to do the work and saw “unforeseen conditions,” as our contract notes, we
  made sure the chimney flashing was water-tight where we started the work, notified the customer there
  was more work involved, and sent him that notice, approx. estimate, & pictures in writing. Being in
  business for 40+ years, noting unforeseen conditions in our contract and notifying the customer if we
  find any unforeseen conditions, we feel is the right practice to exercise and it is an industry standard.
  The customer had the option to get other opinions at the time and we awaited his decision. This is all
  noted back and forth in emails, and he acknowledged we informed him of the need for additional work
  until he could get our estimate. He noted this in an email from him to our scheduling team on 5/03/21
  at 11:29am. See attached email dated 5/03/21.

  On 5/05/21 we emailed our evaluation including an approx. cost to rebuild the chimney. On 5/10/21, he
  informed us via email reply that he had his previous mason take a look and he was going to go with that
  proposal which was not a complete rebuild as we had quoted. See attached emails dated 5/03/21 and
  5/10/21. He went with another contractor/mason that in our opinion, still leaves his chimney not 100%
  leak-free.

  Customer Note #2
  ** ******* accepted the condition of the chimney as remedied. I had earlier found their rebuild quote
  to be more than three times higher than other quotes, and I was hoping we could settle for time and
  material to date, but they proceeded with the understanding that their full guarantee would be in force.

  Company response: Again, our company name is not ** *******, it is **** ***** ******** We did not
  accept the condition of the chimney as “remedied.” We informed the customer our findings which was
  in our evaluation email dated 5/05/21 with an approximate cost. The customer did not choose to
  proceed with our recommendation. The customer continued to proceed with another contractor and
  had that contractor perform less work than was needed per our recommendation. The customer had a
  right to make this decision, but we did inform the customer what our findings were and the cost to
  proceed with our company’s recommendations. This statement in line 2 is a false accusation.

  On 8/11/22, after he reported another leak and we responded to his leak notification (on 8/06 & 8/08)
  within one business day (we were on-site 8/09/22 to investigate), we did not find any issues with the 
  chimney flashing work we performed, reported that back to him with photos. We offered another repair
  estimate at a low cost to help resolve the issues where work wasn’t performed (it looks like mainly the
  crown and some more tuck-pointing the mason must not have included in his scope of work). On at least
  one occasion that we know of, the customer chose to have work performed by another contractor, work
  we did not perform, and we cannot guarantee. The customer did not go with the recommendations our
  company provided, therefore we can only guarantee the work he chose to have completed by us.

  We have been in business for over 40 years because we respond, and we stand behind our work. Drew
  Smith offered the customer a 10-year guarantee on the work performed, in which many companies out
  there don’t guarantee a small “repair” for that long, if at all.

  Customer Note #3
  On initial completion of the ** ******* work the roof leaked almost immediately due to shoddy
  workmanship. It’s true that they inspected the work and perhaps did some remedial work (I cannot
  verify that such work was ever performed).

  Company response: The customer is continuing to state our company name incorrectly and in a
  derogatory manner. Again, our company name is not ** *******, it is **** ***** ******** Comments
  from the customer such as: “On initial completion of the ** ******* work the roof leaked almost
  immediately due to shoddy workmanship.” We view these kinds of comments as slander. The customer
  is continuing to document the name of our company incorrectly and make false and damaging
  statements. There is a number of things that could happen in the outside elements that could cause the
  gap in the flashing. The customer reported the problem and we took action to rectify the problem, at no
  charge to the customer.

  As previously mentioned in the prior BBB response, the customer reported a leak on 10/07/21. Brad
  Smith Roofing was out within 24 hours to investigate a gap that had opened in the flashing. Brad Smith
  Roofing then came out and completed this detail at no charge to the customer.

  06/08/2021 BSR completes chimney flashing
  ? 06/30/2021 BSR invoices customer
  ? 07/03/2021 Customer paid in full
  ? 10/07/2021 Customer reports leak at chimney after heavy wind/rain
  ? 10/08/2021 BSR appointment to investigate. Finds gap in sealant at chimney flashing
  ? 11/02/2021 BSR completes repair (at No charge) 

  Customer Note #4
  The heavy rain season was over, and as there was never an over-winter leak issue prior, neither was
  there an issue over the 21-22 winter, but upon the first heavy rain of the ’22 summer season, the
  chimney leaked far worse than ever before, and when I contacted ** ******* for remedy they
  responded with a proposal for and additional $500+ to repair the leak.
  I paid this outfit $1740.00 to fix a leak that was worse when their work was completed than it was
  before they started, and now they ask for more money. I did not have the confidence in ** ******* at
  this point continue with them.

  Company response: Again, our company name is not ** *******, it is **** ***** ******** On 8/11/22,
  Brad Smith Roofing reported our findings to a leak the customer reported on 8/06 & 8/08/22. This was
  over a year after the original work was completed, and nearly 10 months since the last work was
  completed. There had been many days of rain reported within that timeframe. On 8/09/22, we did not
  find any issues with the chimney flashing work we performed, we were on-site within (1) business day
  and reported that back to the customer with photos, and we offered a repair estimate at a low cost to
  help resolve the issues where work wasn’t performed to-date, from the photos we have documented, it
  appeared the mason did not rebuild the whole chimney as we recommended to do in writing (as noted
  earlier in response to comment #2). The other contractor/mason must not have included tuckpointing
  needed at the very least and/or any repairs to the crown in his scope of work performed, leaving the
  customer not 100% leak-free.

  Again, the customer did not go with the recommendations our company provided, therefore we can
  only guarantee the repair work the customer chose to have completed by us. 

  Customer Note #5
  I paid the money, and I still have the leak; this is the substance of my complaint. ** ******* wishes to
  introduce the condition of the chimney at this point, as well as the fact that I opted for remedy
  elsewhere, but they fail to mention that their continued performance on this contract, as well as their
  payment for the contract, was conditioned on their acceptance of the condition of the chimney.
  When ** ******* completed the work and asked for payment, no additional conditions regarding the
  strata were brought to me attention.
  They claim they did flashing work, but as I mentioned, I paid $1740.00 to remedy a leak, and I did not
  get the service that I paid for.

  Company response: Again, our company name is not ** *******, it is **** ***** ******** We believe the
  customer is repeating some of the same statements in this paragraph as in earlier paragraphs.

  This statement is a false accusation: “When ** ******* completed the work and asked for payment, no
  additional conditions regarding the strata were brought to me attention.”

  The customer is continuously failing to mention the details of the job as performed or acknowledging
  what is in detail from our written emails as well as the customers written emails. We did notify the
  customer upon the start of the job that we were recommending a chimney rebuild after arriving on-site
  and seeing the conditions of the bricks behind the old flashing had been deteriorated. We sent photos
  and an approx. estimate on 5/05/21. We notified the customer of this information, and it was at this
  point the customer was made aware of the unforeseen conditions.

  - We have a written email dated 5/03/21 from the customer, that the customer was made aware
  of the unforeseen findings, and was waiting on an estimate from **** ***** ********
  - The customer was made aware in writing in an email dated 5/05/21, with photo documentation,
  of the unforeseen conditions and what Brad Smith Roofing recommended to proceed with an
  approx. estimate.
  - The customer sent us an email in writing on 5/10/21, that he chose to go with another
  contractor and did not choose to proceed with the estimate and recommendation of Brad Smith
  Roofing for a complete rebuild of the chimney.

  As stated multiple times, Brad Smith Roofing performed a chimney flashing repair and has given the
  customer a 10-year guarantee only on the work performed by **** ***** ******** We made other
  recommendations the customer chose not to accept, and contracted work recommended by others as
  the customer noted in his email. We cannot guarantee other contractor’s work. We have noted several
  times now, we are happy to continue to investigate and we are happy to meet the customer’s mason
  on-site. 

  Customer response

  02/22/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

  I acknowledge that your company name is BRAD SMITH ROOFING, and that you object to my reference of BS Roofing; however, in Cust Note #3 you refer to BRAD SMITH ROOFING as BSR six times.  Is it that you are permitted to use initials but I am not?  I will hereinafter refer to BRAD SMITH ROOFING (aka ** ******* or BSR) as Respondent.
  I see no point in further addressing Respondent responses to Cust Notes numbers 1, 2, 4, & 5 because in each Respondent continues to excuse the failure of his work product on the condition of the chimney, which chimney Respondent inspected subsequent to the remedial work performed and affirmed the condition of the chimney as adequate to complete the work product with full guarantee, and most importantly, take my money.
  Respondent also seems to be confused as to what was expected when I contracted for a leak repair, so to clarify, what I was paying for was a leak repair that not only did not happen, but that seems to have been severely aggravated by Respondent’s efforts.
  With reference to Attachments 1 & 2, being copies of email correspondence between me and Respondent (previously submitted to BBB complaint) subsequent to the chimney repair that I initiated, I offered Respondent the choice of: 1) Accepting the chimney repair as adequate for full warranty per the original contract, or 2) Walk away with settlement for time & material to date.  To this choice Respondent replied on May 11, 2021 that Respondent would inspect the chimney condition (see Attachment #1); on May 17, 2021 Respondent informed that continuation of the work was scheduled, and by so scheduling affirmed that the condition of the chimney was satisfactory to deliver the work promised (with full guarantee), and take my money (see Attachment #2).
  Respondent cannot have this both ways.  If they affirm by inspection and performance of work that the condition of the chimney is satisfactory to deliver their work product and guarantee, then respondent may not excuse the complete failure of their work product on the condition of the chimney.
  With further reference to attachments 1 & 2, I will here state that after receiving the egregiously overpriced quote for a chimney rebuild from Respondent, I wanted Respondent to take option #2 and get lost.  Respondent chose option #1, I suspect, because the fee that I had agreed to was too lucrative for Respondent to pass on regardless whether or not Respondent could actually provide the agreed upon service.
  Since the Respondent has agreed that the condition of the chimney was satisfactory, the only remaining issue is that I had a leak (occurring only in severe wind-blown rain events, and never in winter), and after timely paying respondent $1,740.00 to remediate the leak by means of skill, equipment, and experience Respondent represents he possesses, I have a leak that is far worse than I had before Respondent was engaged.  Respondent notes that some ten months passed before evidence of failure was reported (severe storm), and implies that I must therefore be satisfied with the work.  What I don’t understand is why, when I have nine years and two months remaining on Respondent’s ten-year guarantee, Respondent did not move to remedy work product defects without insisting on an additional $525.00 for completing his work, bringing the total for a leak repair to $2,265!
  Respondent can try and excuse this lack of performance with respect to the contract any way he pleases, but the fact is the only service Respondent provided was a substantial increase in the volume of water intrusion.
  In Cust Note #3 Respondent claims that that my statement to the effect of (his) “shoddy workmanship” is slanderous.  Really?  That Respondent’s workmanship is shoddy I based on the dual evidence that a prominent flashing seam seal failed immediately after completion of the work, and that the leak continues unabated after Respondent’s efforts.  I will refer Respondent to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution to initiate the gathering of more information regarding slander, as it’s an involved topic that I have previously litigated at some length.
  Respondent has claimed repeatedly that he “…stands behind his work”, but I disagree.  Prior to retirement I developed software as an occupation, and my standard for work product was satisfaction of the client’s specifications for the application, or in other words, I wasn’t done until my product worked.  Am I to understand that Respondent’s industry operates on a different standard, being apparently doing some stuff, taking the money, and leaving the client with a problem worse than the one with which he started?
  I am more than tired of the continuing back and forth with Respondent.  It appears that Respondent offers just one untenable excuse after another, and Respondent seems to feel that I should just accept the fact that my money is gone, and that Respondent did some work so it’s not his problem.  Respondent’s attitude makes me wonder if a court has ever ordered Respondent to compensate a customer pursuant to a civil action against Respondent for incomplete or inadequate contractual performance.  Would Respondent care to comment?
  I propose that Respondent refund 50% ($870.00) of the fee I paid for his work product that did nothing to solve my problem, I hold Respondent harmless, and we end the disagreement.
  
  Regards,
  
  **** ***********
  
  
  
  
   

*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. ↩