Topside Construction / Roofing

Here is a letter that I have sent to the Attorney General's Office Regarding my complaint. Please, if you have an issue with Topside Construction you need to file a complaint! If the Attorney General's office receives enough complaints, they will investigate this matter!

Washington State Office of the Attorney General

Bellingham: Island, San Juan, Skagit and Whatcom

103 E. HOLLY, SUITE 308

BELLINGHAM, WA 98225-4728

(360) 738-6185 Fax (360) 738-6190

RE: Complaint against Topside Roofing

My complaint includes the following violations:

1. Failure to provide an installation to meet building code, which is required by law

2. Failure to obtain a permit through the city of Bellingham, which is required by law

3. Breach of contract

4. Unfair contracting practices

Please review the brief explanations below and the attached correspondence, which includes more detailed information.

Item 1

With respect to failing to meet the building code, Topside construction installed my new roofing and roof sheathing with staples that are inadequate. See attached proposal from Hytech Roofing noting that,

“existing staples appear too short to penetrate through rafters.” When I brought this to the attention of Topside, they stated they perform all their installations in this manner. I demanded that they switch to nailing, which they reluctantly did. I also urged them to stop this practice because it does not meet the requirements of the building code. The ICC Legacy Report NER-272 (a report publishing by the publisher of the building code to explain alternate acceptable practices) notes that while staples are allowed, the staple penetration, gage and spacing must meet the prescriptive requirements listed in the report. When nailing through two thicknesses of sheathing, a longer staple at closer spacing is required, this was not done by Topside roofing.

Upon final inspection of the entire roof shingles and sheathing installation, I observed that the nailing was not properly fastened to the roof framing below. My roofing is exposed in my attic space and is accessible to full view. Topside failed to make contact with the roof framing below. The nails missed the roof framing. The IBC Code for Conventional light framing construction (Item 31, Table 2304.9.1) requires that the sheathing be nailed directly to the roof framing. I contacted Gary Lange, City of Bellingham Plans examiner and confirmed that this is required. Also, please find attached a letter from Mark Carpenter Roofing noting that the roofing installation by Topside is defective. In the installation provided by Topside, there are instances where the nails missed the roof framing in 60-90% of the time. I have since obtained to evaluations from other roofing companies to inspect the problem: Hytech Roofing and Mark Carpenter Roofing who are both licensed and bonded roofers and have performed numerous roofing installations in Whatcom County. Also, Mark Carpenter roofing was selected as the most qualified company to re-roof the historic “Gates House”, which is a structure soon to be listed on the National Historic Register and is located on Woodstock Farm, which is owned by the City of Bellingham. Both roofers agreed that the only way to repair the defective installation is to re-roof the house. I have this in writing from both companies.

Please also note that according to the City of Bellingham Municipal Code Section , any violation of the International Building Code or International Residential Code as adopted is a misdemeanor.

Item 2

With respect to Topside failing to obtain a permit, all contractors working within the city of Bellingham’s jurisdiction are required to sign a permit through the City of Bellingham. Topside failed to obtain a permit from the permit center, which is required by law. My bid did not specifically state that obtaining a permit was excluded, which is irrelevant since all contractors are required to provide a signature on the permit before beginning work. I called the Building Permit Center and they stated that it is an industry standard for the roofing company to obtain the permit. I also observed on May 9, 2007 Topside Roofing working on another house down the street from mine at 2711 Meridian Street. I called the City of Bellingham and confirmed that Topside did not obtain a permit for this installation either, so they are unlawfully performing roofing installations as a common practice.

Item 3

With respect to the breach of contract, Topside did not perform my project in accordance with industry standards, codes, and refused to correct the problem, and they filed a lien against my house when they were not permitted to do so. I did not receive a "notice to customers" regarding lien rights when I received my bid and signed my bid. I received my bid via email and the general conditions of the contract were not included. I have my original email with the original attachment directly from Topside roofing, which is proof of this.

Item 4

With respect to unfair contracting practices, I tried to resolve this matter with Phil York who is the owner of Topside Roofing. He first offered me a $500 credit for the faulty installation. I declined this offer and explained to him my reasons for doing so in that the credit is inadequate to correct the problem. Phil then offered me $1000 credit, which again is inadequate. He then offered my $1500, which I felt was inadequate because I had obtained two bids from other roofing contractors to correct the problem. The cost for correcting the problem is in excess of $11,000. Phil also told me that he would not honor any warranty work on my house if he issues a credit. This is not a fair way to conduct business. Work was completed on my house 4/6/7. A final bill was sent to me on 4/18/07 and a lien on my house was placed on 4/19/07, which was on the same day as my final bill. Also, when I discussed all these matters with Phil and his estimators, they told me that they perform this type of work on all the houses that they re-roof. I told them that they need to immediately stop these practices because they are performing faulty installations on hundreds of homes. This matter should be investigated immediately so that other consumers do fall victim to faulty and defective work.

I called the Attorney General’s office and was informed that Topside has had two complaints filed against them. I was also notified by an anonymous source that four other people that filed lawsuits against Topside Construction, but ended up dropping the suits because the cost of legally pursuing them was far more than the claim itself. This is unfair and unjust. One should not have to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer for a problem with a contractor. Consumers need to be protected against this. I have already spent $759 on a lawyer, who also advised me that fighting Topside Construction would cost me more in legal fees than it would to just pay another contractor out of my own pocket to correct the situation. I was also advised that should I try to voice my opinion, Topside could retaliate and file a suit against me. This is not an acceptable business practice and is extremely unfair and unjust. Consumers should have some protection against contractors like this.

Resolution

I have obtained quotes and evaluations from two other licensed and bonded roofing companies. Both agreed that the work that was performed by Topside is faulty and defective and the only way to fix to the problem is to re-roof the house. The bid I received to re-roof the house is $9,440 for re-roofing the house and $2,063 to re-roof the garage. The other bid I received was for $6,243.84 for re-roofing the house only. I am seeking a refund from Top Side roofing for the cost of re-roofing my house and for the cost of attorney’s fees.

I strongly urge you to investigate this matter and immediately take action. Topside is performing these roof installations all over the county. There are potentially hundreds, if not more, consumers that have defective installations that do not meet building code and are unsafe to the health and welfare of the public.

For additional information, here is the sequence of events that have occurred:

Date Description

3/08/07 Received email bid without any general conditions or notice to customer regarding liens

4/2/07 Work started

4/5/07 Work completed

4/5/07 I called Topside and left a message with Mark West to alert them to the problem

4/06/07 I faxed a letter to Topside explaining the problem

4/06/06 I spoke with Mark West regarding problem

4/06/07 I left a message with Phil York, owner

4/6/07 Greg came to house at 4pm to inspect installation

4/9/07 Greg called me at 7am to request to come to the house at 5pm this same day

4/9/07 Greg called at 5pm and said he could not come over. We rescheduled to 4/10/07

4/10/07 Greg came to house to inspect the installation at 5pm

4/11/07 I faxed another letter to Topside Construction explaining the issues

4/11/07 I talked to Greg at 10am. He offered a $500 credit

4/11/07 I talked to Phil York at 11am. He offered a $1,000 credit and he warned that if I took the credit, he would void my roof warranty.

4/12/07 I received a response letter from Phil at Topside Construction

4/12/07 I faxed my response to Phil’s letter

4/13/07 I met with Steve Adelstein, lawyer, to discuss the situation

4/16/07 I called Western Roofing to obtain a roof evaluation and bid. They stated that they do not like to get involved in disputes and that they would not inspect my roof

4/17/07 I called Bill Quehrn with the Builders Industry Association to discuss this matter

4/20/07 I received a certified letter notifying me that Topside Construction has placed a lien on my house

4/24/07 I met with Steve Adelstein, lawyer, to discuss costs of fighting lien

4/30/07 I met with Hytech Roofing and had them analyze roof and sheathing installation and provide bid for fixing the problem

5/1/07 I called Steve Adelstein, lawyer, to discuss lien and determined that it would cost more to fight the lien than it would to just pay the bill in full

5/1/07 I called and spoke with Bill Quehrn at the Builders Industry Association to discuss this matter. He stated he would discuss with his board members and recommended that I send him a letter summarizing the situation

5/1/07 I paid Topside Roofing in full

5/1/07 I met with Mark Carpenter Roofing to analyze roof and sheathing installation and provide bid for fixing the problem

5/9/07 I observed Topside working at 2711 Meridian Street. I called City of Bellingham Building department and filed a complaint that Topside was working without a permit. The City called me back and confirmed that Topside was working without a permit.

The following items are attached to this letter:

1. Letter to Phil York Dated April 12, 2007

2. Letter from Phil York Dated April 12, 2007

3. Letter to Phil York Dated April 11, 2007 including excerpt from Building Code

4. Letter to Mark West Dated April 6, 2007

5. Topside Bid Proposal

6. Topside Change Order Dated April 4, 2007

7. Certified Letter from Topside’s Lawyer notifying me that a lien has been placed on my house Dated April 19, 2007

8. Topside Invoice Paid in Full

9. Email from City of Bellingham Plan’s Examiner

10. Proposal from Hytech Roofing

11. Evaluation Letter from Mark Carpenter Roofing

By filing this compliant, I realize and fear that Topside will retaliate against me by filing suit and by not honoring an installation warranty for product and workmanship. I am bringing this to the attention of the Attorney General’s office and I wish to seek protection from Topside for any retaliation actions by Topside.