Addicott Roofing Inc. - Warranty not honored

Posted on Monday, April 11th, 2011 at 8:30pm CDT by 4aec3c09

Product: Roofer / Contractor

Company: Addicott Roofing Inc.

Location: 18926 83rd Avenue West
Edmonds, WA, 98026, US

URL: http://www.addicottroofing.com/

Category: Other

My roof leaks.

Invoice dated July, 2006

Work completed September, 2006,

Specifications on invoice include:

"Job complete with clean-up, 5-year guarantee, 30 year written material warranty from shingle manufacturer."

Addicot roofing has been notified three times of leaks. Each contact was followed up with numerous phone calls. Each notification resulted in a promise of a meeting to examine the problem. Each time I was told that a representative of the company had stopped by other than the appointed time "because they were in the neighborhood" and found no problem.

Realizing I was near the end of the warranty period I finally made enough noise to get Rod Addicott to stop by and inspect the roof. We met at my home on Friday, March 18th. After the inspection he promised to speak with his foreman and contact me that same day with a plan for repair. He has not contacted me since that meeting.

I have since had three BBB accredited roofers come to give estimates for repair.

All offered different solutions but independently agreed that the problems stem from the installation, not venting, condensation or ancillary damage.

A summary of these roofers observations follow:

1) Clearstory Flashing at crest incorrectly installed- remove & replace

2) Neoprene soil stack flashings incorrectly installed. Material sub-standard - remove & replace.

3) Open bulge over garage where sheeting had been incorrectly replaced - remove shingles, check sub-structure, re-nail plywood & replace shingles with new.

4) Chimney flashing incorrectly installed. Visible gaps. Substructure missing or compromised. - Remove, inspect, repair damage & correctly install flashing.

5) Downspout sections missing - install per original design.

6) Roof vents on east elevation of inferior quality. Installation not correct for type. - Re-secure per specifications.

7) Roof to wall flashing re-used from previous roof. Flashing obviously damaged during installation. Visible gaps and dog-earring - should have been replaced after damage.

8) No perimeter edge metal installed.

9) Plywood soft in three areas - suspect poor installation, possible de-lamination

One roofer quoted for preliminary work to explore the extent of the problems.

The second suggested what would be required to stop the leaks, but would not be able to offer a warranty without replacing the roof.

The third would not entertain repairing the roof and suggested that their company could not afford to inherit the grief. They could only replace the roof.


0 Comments

Post a Comment