Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  03/26/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We purchased a home in July of 2022. The home had a 7 year old roof when purchased. The roof, at the first rain storm immediately started leaking. We had the same roofing company come to fix the issue. They repaired with an inspection fee. A few months later when more rain came, same leak. They then charged us again for another inspection fee for the exact same issue. We then had a few items that were suggested installed such as a missing downspout, they never installed it, and another downspout to help with drainage. More rain, more leaking. Around 4 times we had them attempt to fix the leak. We then were told that the roof needs to be replaced. I was also told after the last "repair" that the previous owner knew that the type of roof wasn't recommended to be installed, and the roofing company installed it per request. They have now given me a quote for a new roof of 9k, and the roof when installed in 2015 was 13k. I have asked for paperwork of the original install, and received nothing after 4 weeks of multiple emails.

  Customer response

  04/26/2024

   
  Complaint: 21490118
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Knowingly installing an incorrect roof is unacceptable. How can a business with any ethics, or integrity charge for something they know will fail. If there wasn't a leak due to drought, then the first storm comes through has immediate leaks. Your company didn't inform us of needing a new roof till after at least 4 attempts to repair. Charging an inspection fee for a known problem. Your company states it knew of the problem. 

  Also, we will be taking acting against the previous owner since they did not disclose that the roof was leaking. Knowing that the roof was already leaking, your company should have informed us immediately before any repairs that your company recommends a new roof. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  Business response

  04/26/2024

  ******************,
  

  There are a few issues pertaining to your response that we are having a hard time with. Please allow us to clarify any/all confusion.
  
  

  *************************: How can a business with any ethics, or integrity charge for something they know will fail.
  
  Lucerne Roofing: To be clear, our statement was: 
  being lake front property with no protection to high wind gusts that the composition roof as specified could allow water to intrude during high wind and/or heavy rain storm events.
  (the previous owner) made the decision to have the composition shingle roof installed in the areas of concern, rather than a roof system that (we suggested) would provide better protection for high wind driven rains on lower sloped roofs as recommended.
   ******************, any roof system, regardless of type/slope, can fail when subjected to high wind, storm damage and water intrusion..but that can be said about almost anything when subjected to the elements. 
  
  
  *************************: Your company didn't inform us of needing a new roof till after at least 4 attempts to repair.
  
  Lucerne Roofing: We did not attempt at least 4 times to repair the leak. We were called to ************************************************************* for the following;
  - January 2023 to address the leak/water intrusion 
  - February 2023 to install the fabricated downspouts per your request
  - March 2023 to address the leak/water intrusion 
  - May 2023 installation of the additional fabricated downspouts per   your request
  
  
  *************************: Charging an inspection fee for a known problem.
  
  Lucerne Roofing: Lucerne Roofing did not charge an inspection fee. As we stated at the time of your first initial call and in our previous response, 
  ****************** was told that he would be responsible for the field service/repair charge, as there was no remaining warranty on the labor/repair side of the roof, for Lucerne Roofing to determine the entry point of the intrusion. ****************** agreed and we dispatched our field service men to the above said address. 
  Part of that fee included the application of the co-polymer sealant (which you agreed upon) to the wind damaged composition shingles in an attempt to stop future wind driven water intrusion. 
  
  
  *************************: Your company states it knew of the problem., Knowing that the roof was already leaking, your company should have informed us immediately before any repairs that your company recommends a new roof.
  
  Lucerne Roofing: That statement(s) is incorrect. Prior to your initial call to Lucerne Roofing we had no knowledge of water intrusion, nor had we had any contact with the previous owner regarding water intrusion. It wasnt until you had requested information regarding the previous owner that we were informed (March 2024) by the owner that: 
  As we were not comfortable releasing confidential documents of one customer to another without legal consent, it was at that point we contacted the original owner, and he stated that the leak he is experiencing were in fact disclosed to ****************** upon the sale of the house.
  
  In total ****************** you have been charged $603.00 by Lucerne Roofing for the following:
  Date                           Invoice #     Amount                         Paid
  January 24, 2023         7397               $178.00                   Yes
  February  7, 2023        7410               $200.00                    Yes
  March     21, 2023       7446               $338.31                    No/Cleared
  May 8, 2023                7481               $225.00                    Yes
  
  As stated/shown in the previous response and attachments, $178.00 was for the field service/repair charge and $425.00 was for the fabrication and installation of downspouts, one of which you initially stated was never furnished by Lucerne Roofing but later admitted to our service tech that you had in fact located it in the shed. 
  
  With the charge of $338.31 being previously cleared as per your request, and regardless of the fact that you ****************** were told on multiple occasions, verbally as well as in writing that there would be no guarantee or warranty provided for this work, and with Lucerne Roofing standing behind our work and services provided to you, in good faith, we are willing to refund you the $178.00 for the field service/repair charge as it pertains to the issue regarding the water intrusion.  

  *******************, Lucerne Roofing

  Customer response

  04/30/2024

   
  Complaint: 21490118
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The roofing company and the previous owners stories do not match. No disclosure of a leak is in the closing documents. Someone is lying. Regardless, your company never provided any paperwork to back that the previous owner had been made aware of a leak. Nor that you would recommend a different type of roofing. And, that a roof can fail less than 6 years after install is not acceptable. I understand weather, and that with multiple years of drought that this would just be found out. Even with that, a 5 1/2 year old roof should not fail. Just after your warranty expired.

  No one from your company informed us at any point until I spoke with your Employee ***** that this roof material was not what your company had recommended. No written documentation that was provided states this. 

  Your company, by your own admission per your first response knew of a previous leak. To then have a new homeowner be charged for a known problem is not acceptable. Your company agreed not to charge again since I pushed back about a second charge so close to the initial inspection/repair. 

  Where is your documentation? I have mine, and I will be pursuing replacement of the roof. Either by your company, and/or the previous owner. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

*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. ↩