Complaint Review: Home depot and its roof installers - NC adress on a SC company (?) Nationwide

Hey all, just so you know, that  today (on August 14, 2014) it has "finally appeared" on our credit report that this account (which I have already shown was closed already back in March 2014 (by us) as it appears in the credit angencies reports prior (as we had our credit report in hand) apparently according to THD Citibank it was not (that they JUST RECENTLY closed this account). So today THEY show (per their own adding into it) that it was finally closed by THD Citibank (but with a $14,070 "balance") on this date. And all of this on an old (closed) account that only has a $7000 credit limit (when it was opened)

Are you following me here? 

The credit Agencies had this account closed with a zero balance already, as a REFUND check was issued (as the dispute was resolved) back in March 2014

This is why showing this beforehand is important, and I cant edit here on rip off, so this works for me.

I cant copy paste from the credit report (online) yet, I can read them but I had to order them so I can upload what I am telling you about later, but this is for your information to know they will likely do something like this to you if the same situation happens to you. 

They also made a little note on my credit report today which states

"Account closed at consumer's request and dispute investigation completed, consumer disagrees."

** But... the account was already requested to be closed back in March 28 2014 when the investigation was found in our favor even as we spoke to Josh at Citibank who also confirmed so much with a manager beforehand. I have a clip of Josh in March with my husband on the phone on this

This account which was in dispute as far back as Sept 12, 2013 had finally became eligible for a refund and so a refund check was issued.

They mailed us a check for our messed up roof as we still have a tarp over it.

I also have the copy of the April 4, 2014 refund check just have to make copies and scribble out important details.

They aparently "changed their minds" and so they are playing around with credit card accounts now. 

I actually called the FBI in Columbia SC because I havent seen anything like this nor has my sister (who is an underwirter for a bank) this is just really messed up. There should be a federal investigation done. We already requested one be done internally at THD Citibank for these unauthorized charges.

This is just so you know what these people do. You see the pictures here and the reports, and all the evidences (even our own insurance company Nationwide puts this in their court) not something that they cover. 

I am posting this to be a witness, perhaps for someone else who they might be doing this to.

You might just want to rethink this before you decide to finance a roof installation through the Home depot Citibank credit card, because from beginning to end it has been a nightmare of games being played, its done very much on purpose (so if you find yourself not making sense of things, and you cant believe this is serious, its done because they get off on doing this to people. You will understand this when you are going through something like this, I would rather spare you. Because  if their roof installers have a bad day on your roof and it comes out like mine, they will seek to stick you with it long after they lead you to believe (even on a monitored phonecall) that its all been settled and they are making good on yours after so long, and long after you have deposited your check and closed your account and on the hunt for someone to fix the peice of crap your stuck with.

My roof is a peiece of crap. you cant UNsee these pictures, the roof is a RIDICULOUS Sight

MY **NEW** HOME DEPOT ROOF NEEDS **A TARP** just to survive rains (even as it has a tarp on it today) and somehow this IS NORMAL for this company?

Now,  this company is getting off by messing with consumers closed credit card accounts?

Seriously? The FTC needs to get involved here because there is some serious ongoing fraud going on here not just in the banking area of this but in the insurance area of this, I dont even believe these men were legal licenced, or insured. And the man who was in charge here "has disapeared" from their rememberance ironically.

Just giving a heads up to others, if you are wondering how a bad roof install might go with you (if you had one with Home depot) by giving you something to look at when it come to how it is going with us.

 I was under the impression it was illegal (a fraud or a felony of some kind) to re-open a previously closed account with a zero balance and place a bunch of unauthorized charges on such a card? 

Stay with me because these charges were only coming up just recently when you would call Citi bank (and this followed after they were first wiped out, and this is why I include a copy paste of what the credit reporting agencies reflect. 

 Here is the credit report (nixed out the whole thing, just kept the last 4 numbers)Below is a copy paste of the account from the credit report (showing the last 4 numbers of the account)

This was pulled last month.

Notice, THD/ Citi Bank N.A and July (or last month) in 2014 and notice it was closed at the consumers request.

The date this credit report was pulled was July 23, 2014.

This is just a copy paste of it, so when Rip off updates this post let it be known that we have had our credit report in hand here.

I think maybe I should start a new thread on this. Maybe I still will

Citi Bank somehow reopened this very account (which is obviously already being reported to be both paid and closed by consumer) and this was also previously confirmed by Citi Bank concerning this account actually being closed since March 27, 2014. 

But this week we called after receiving a letter about having a "credit reversed" but "a credit" didnt even exist to have it reversed.

The former "provisional credit" issued to the account was held in "provisional status" then it was approved by Citi bank as eligible for "a refund" (they sent us and we did receive "a refund" check).

Now theres $14,070 of unathorized charges put back onto this account, thats not being reflected with the credit Bureau's only when we called (after receiving that letter to check it out). This is happening four months after that provisional credit isuued in March was resolved and a final (refund) check was then issued.

This is crazy.

Now heres another weird thing, they are now writing to us telling us they are going to close this account (as "we have" requested?) 

Why on earth would we ask this when all three the credit Bureau's show that account is closed already?

Someone is actually making false requests on our behalf, my husband asked who is authorizing these things, these charges even.

Did they mean reverse "a refund"? Because they wrote "reverse a credit", but it would appear that they really just changed their mind on the refund. So much for "refund" meaning "final" huh?

There was no credit to even reverse as the credit card was closed with a zero balance (even as the credit Beauru's reflect the exact same thing).

Unless they really meant they have changed their minds, and decided they would opened a closed account and add unauthorized charges. Because they want our refund back?

They issued us a refund (which is "final") and when you called on this account back in April is showed the account had a zero balance with Citi even and that it was closed, then this week it was reflecting a $14,070 balance showing they are charging closed accounts, this is insane.

It gets better.

I honestly didnt know who to call about all these kinds of things and so I had called the FBI in Columbia SC to report them some of these goings on here because this just seems like illegal activity on some federal level here (we never saw before) this whole thing is craziness. The FBI advised me to contact the Federal Trade Commission.

Honestly, how do they charge $14,070 on a customer closed account at all, let alone one which had (even when it was opened) just a $7000 credit limit?

What is it now, a semi re-opened (but sorta kinda closed account) with twofold over unauthorized charges (thus, some kind of overdrawn account)?

What do you call this move? Legal? Illegal?

Not done yet, get this. We are being sent mail (dated on their side of things as July 25, 2014) telling us "per our own request" that they are closing our account

(???)

But for us to please give the credit Bureau's 30 days to reflect this

(???)

What the heck?

The credit Bureau's have already been reflecting this account has been closed by consumer. So someone over at THD, Citi Bank N.A. is going into their previous customers accounts and apearntly adding charges into them  and are begining to generate letters (even after that fact) that we are somehow (now) requesting them to close what is already closed (since March).  So obviously we wouldnt have done this because we already know for a fact (and that more perfectly) by the three government agencies that this account is indeed closed as it was by us back in March 27, 2014. 

Now after we had asked for an investigation into this matter of who the heck authorized this over at Citi they want no more correspondence on this. What??

Everyone in their own office (like Josh, John, and Tiffany) have agreed that no updates were even going on over there, Josh confirmed the refubd check and that it was an actual refund with nothing provisional attached to it. The request to close this account (with a zero'd out balance) in March went through Josh (as did issuing that refund check) but not before confirming this with a manager. John (Team #5149) also acknowledged the account was closed back in March 27, 2014 but is now slammed with this figure on it?

The people involved in all of this are playing games with people accounts and with people in general in other areas of this, the insurance sector of this as well (as I have shared a little on earlier)

My sister who had been watching this whole escapade as a bystander (she is an underwriter for a bank, and a notary) who would not advise until I asked (she was waiting) watching all of this and cant believe what is going on here. She asks for our permission to talk to someone over Citi, and we give her permission (which should be noted on the account) and she ended up speaking with John for awhile and Tiffany (much longer). Tiffany and John are of the same team number (Team #5149). Its those two conversations I would love to hear, but its probably doing a Lois Lerner by now.

Is anyone out there experiencing such craziness? Is this even legal?  And heres what seems to be happening , its like the phonecalls are being monitored (for which I am actually glad for) but it seems that if someone makes a mistake (on their end) its like theres someone over there covering over these things, sweeping them out of the publics view by sending letters of requests (we never requested) using these letters to muddy the waters (confuse things) trying to backpeddle and we cant be the only one they do this with, because it seems like they make this a practice. Systematic. I will let the FTC judge whether the bank personal seem to be pressing (if not going over) the line. If this is happening to others please know you are not alone. 

I am posting this on August 3, 2014, Im writing this, I have the letters I mention, I wanted to get this up before something changes in this, and because you cant edit after posting here (which I love also) and that is somewhat iof an added protection when telling folks these things too.

I will likely make one more update post and conclude, but I also might take what is happening with Citi bank and create another post out of it rather then have it get lost here under all of these posts. Because although it fits more here (along with this horrible roof experience) and now a very strange financial experience (somewhat indicating the "in bed" nature of these beasts I think its something that should be brough forward a little more, so people can see what can now go on when financing with their affiliates.

Sounds like them, sorry to hear about your losses, I understand but I am still glad you posted to bring these things to the forefront. I myself have a thread here on what I have been going thru with Home depot and Citibank (now) spending $18,000 for a new roof, and I dont believe they have insurance (only say they do) and no your right, they stick you with all the damages whether you sign an agreement or not. We are out $4000 in broken glass and thousands in stained  cedar (which is now warping) and this is a year and a half old roof which still has a tarp over it. My goodness I wouldnt advise anyone to purhcase a roof installation through Home depot you wont even get what their own commerical promotes. And Corporate does nothing really, they just have teams (as they call them) folks hired "to handle you" when things go wrong on their end, but basically they dont do anything but say, "wow Im so sorry to hear about your experience" (or something similar) but wont offer to do a darned thing about it. When I read your post I thought, hmmm, seems its no different anywhere with this store (or so it seems) and whether you spend the amount you did or far more you are not alone.

You had said, " 

They made us pay for additional flooring and sign an agreement before the installation was done leaving us with no recourse if anything went wrong...

Exactly, but heres the thing, your screwed when you sign but they will still screw you when you dont too (I know, because I didnt sign anything). Then meet retaliation because that is what it is.

They have now opened a closed account and seem to be engaging in deceptive credit practices on our end. All the credit angencies show the account as closed, they send us mail last month which says, "per your request" ...(in respects to our own supposed request to close our account) that was a lie as we had our credit report in our hand showing it was closed (by consumer) with a zero balance. Thats what they do though, they try to make it "appear" as something its not, as luck had it we had the report in our possession, but they reduce themselves to much much more, you got off lucky.

You also said,

The second set of installers they sent out were professional and knew what they were doing. They told us all the things that the first installers did incorrectly. They tried their best to repair all the problems the original installers caused, but could not repair the carpeting or the kitchen cabinets.

Good thing you got some decent installers after the first. Obviously, theres some stuff they cant repair (nor should they if they are unqualified or unable) thats what insurance is for. Your post confirms to me that they likely use uninsured installers for things like this. Whether its your flooring or roofing (like my lemon roof). I believe they  just ask you to sign this sort of thing so you get stuck with the damages (as its often centered around that very thing) and then pretty much continue to stick you without consequence later for themselves.

To me there seems to be some kind of insurance racket going on behind all this, as I am personally convinced of this. I am convinced there is something going on in the banking end of it and also the insurance end of it. In respects to deceptive practices. I already told them what I had thought and I also called the FBI in Columbia SC and said the same to them, there is something really way off in these things.

It doesnt seem to matter what state (or what kind of installation) or the price range you gave as my roof install is a lemon, Nationwide insurance (my homeowners) obtained a structural engineer both of whom set our damages at Home depots installation (as do all the other inspectors from beginning to end).

 Now we are out of thousands of dollar either way as we paid ALL but $880 of the $18,000 (part of which) was in checks whereas the other part was through the Citibank card. When the provisional credit was finally eligible for a refund they issued us that refund (they sent us a check), and this was out of what we had already paid into them through Citibank and then four months later they "changed their minds"?

(I feel the real reason was that we did not sign that settlement agreement (as that was brought up each time I brought up evidence, and what of it? And I was told that twice on a monitored phonecall. I believe thats their way of retaliating against us. No evidence was ever provided except the absense of our signature. And they kept sending us this thing when it was offered back in Febuary before the refund was ever issued, and back then thay presented as a "final offer" so why send it to us again in a July 14, 2014 letter?

Made no sense except to wave it around as the very reason for that letter.

Now we have excellent credit between my husband and myself as we are typically careful purchasers and try to have the money (through saving) and use a card to "pay through" (for the most part) for a measure of protection, but that just seems like a delusion in the case of Home depot. I could have paid half of what I did for my roof by by-passing Home depot and going to GAF's site and obtain a far superior warranty by obtaining one of their reccomended contractors (right at their own website) ironically.

If you ever need a roof go AROUND them,

 Seems now they started unloading all this back dated material to the credit Bureau's (after over 11 months). Citibank had no updates or receipts back in July when my sister talked to Tiffany at Citi. My sister said you could tell she knew more then the others there and she even picked up things just werent right. She said you could hear her going through stuff talking to herself as she went on about how there are just no updates or receipts here (they were completely lost). 

So we too are stuck having bought an incredibly overpriced lemon (of a roof) and it looks like Home depot is sticking us with their installers damages. They decided (somehow) that our tarped (warping) roof (with their rusty nails coming through the badly stained cedar) is worth what we paid for it and want the refund of our monies (which we paid "them") back.

Meanwhile our Homeowners insurance (Nationwide) writes about their decision to deny us in covering the damages done to our roof saying, "Our review showed showed that when the roof was replaced, the flashing around the atrium was not installed properly and this allowed  water to enter resulting in staining and deterioration to the cedar wood ceiling"

In otherwords Home depot installers are to be blamed, but ofcourse they have some other evidence my insurance company would be pretty open to seeing, but not sure they would be willing to share that info with them lol

Just letting you know, whether you sign or not they dont deal justly on any part (or any level) of this, For example, on the banking end of it we had closed that account with Josh at Citibank with a zero balance back in March, but apparently its lawful now to open up a former customer's previously closed account with a zero balance (and four months after the fact) and charged us back and did so by adding in several thousand dollars over our orginal credit limit, and for monies which were already paid by us to them (already) as we did so through Citibank in 2013.

We only had a credit limit of $7000 on that account when it was opened by my husband, but they charged back a closed credit card $14,070 when we arent even approved for that kind of limit and are just being spiteful using deceptive credit pratices in retaliation for not signing their settlement apparently.

Im so not getting how exactly that can even be done by someone but we can show it on our credit reports as they just did this August 14th 2014. 

They are really awful and if I can spare others of them I will do that.

But no, they dont own what they do and I believe its because none of them are really insured (as they advertise them to be). I cant explain it any other way. I know in my own experience names were change (such as those who were there and in charge were changed out with another name) and this was around the insurance side of things. I suppose you wouldnt need to worry about this (really) because they do not intend to make good anyway(whether they or the other) as you have noticed too.

Who do you report such things to the Atorney General?

Now though, I believe they are out to ruin my husbands excellent credit and mine as well, offering us no good reason for their actions. We do try to stay away from using credit but he needs a work truck as he broorowed from his truck fund to pay for this lemon roof and would have begun again to save for a truck for work, but he couldnt because we were paying for the damages Home depots installers have done, mitigating (as they call it) thousands of dollars (for no real insurance company as I see it).

Pretty unmerciful, although you dont find this out until after these installers damage your home (and you find theres no real insurance) as I expressed my concerns to the FBI also.

We actually thought Home depot was capable of being cordial to its good customers, even as we have been good customers of Citibank, but I think folks are more like a drop in the bucket to them (now) overall. They dont seem to look out for their customers interests but their own in things like this

Im glad you posted this (over in Alabama) because this sure sounds like them

(Over here in South Carolina)

Hi everyone. I was going to post another longwinded update and I changed my mind (I did save the longer one though, but I should be brief here (so you can be more thankful) although I dont think anyone will immediately feel that way unless there was some kind of comparison between the two lol

I hope to return to it when what we have been observing comes to fruition as we suspect.

  I  thought, maybe I should just post it here for these guys to see it, otherwise if you post it after they wont believe you. However, I have posted it on another (a private forum) and I will bring that one forward here (as the saga continues).

 Okay so, where are we now since having purchased our roof with Home depot?

 We are into our second year of our nightmare roof installation (purchased through Home depot) and I have returned to give you "a brief" (yes breif)  update (with added pictures) and just so you can see what you would very likely be in for if you ever decide to have a roof installed with Home depot (and what will likely happen with you and yours when they goof on your roof) and how long it will be dragged out.

 Which isnt accurate really please see Joan Binmores roof installation nightmare from some time back. the 72 year old elderly woman from St Pete's Beach Florida. Her experience is google-able, I found it faster on duckduckgo's search engine though.

Pretty much being denied the licenses of the five non english speaking men who really screwd up our roof, and have been directed again (and again) to the contract (THD's) where it states two licenses for the two states SC . On that contract THD is listed as the one who sold, furnished and installed the actual roof (we have 4 of them) but THD are setting the blame out to some other companies (and their insurers) for the installation of it. The contract states THD installed it though. Even the insurance of the man they are blaming names them (THD) as the one who was to "furnish" the materials (they did not) and put the furnishing part of the contract back at THD, and so Blair's and company appears to separate the blame.

Its a blame game and the customer is made to be put in the middle of it.

What I dont get is how they take a contract between us (or rather myself and THD) and then do whatever it is they did with it (to make it between me and someone else)??? How should what they did have anything to do with anything (at all) concerning me? Their own contract states that they THD sold, furnished, and installed the roof (and in that order).

You really have to wonder because there are shady companies doing what is called "aiding and abetting unlicensed contractors" (but  under their own license). Those things make you think, and dig and become a bit more curious as you reflect back (to them being there) but also the many times you had asked for the individual licenses of the man on your roof. But since these couldnt speak enough English to say yes (or no) to and offer of something to drink, I kind of doubt they could actually communicate their own license numbers (if they were asked) or even had legitimate ones. My question remains, but again, since no one is producing these licenses one can only suppose what sure seems obvious (meaning they werent licensed).

Anyway, been passed from Mr Kaplan's of Sedgwick's (with a claim #) to a Ellen Best of Blair and Company whose insured THD was pointing the finger at. A man named Ricky Slayer of Lane's contracting of NC. How he has anything to do with my roof here in SC remains a mystery to us. And we just received a certified mail stating the obvious (at least to me) that Ricky isnt the man who was introduced as being in charge here. I knew that because the man in charge called himself Billy (not Ricky). HOWEVER... Ricky "supposedly" did have a part still. Ricky (some how and in some way) was weasled into my contract with THD with invisible ink to have this charge in fascilitating my roof install to this other ghost (who I dont know) whose name is Andres Gonzalez (who is insured with Kim Allen's Builders mutual insurance).

See how fun (or shady) this seems to be? 

So...given these two new ghost names who have recently popped up alongside of these other two insurance companies (who arent naming the name of the man who was actually here). Would seems to indicate (at least to me) that he (the one really in charge) and that crew werent likely insured either. I returned again to ask Ellen Fox at Home depot corporate last month about this (she was the "go between" between myself and THD) and I receive nothing beyond the former responses which was to "see the contract licences" (which pertains to the two states SC and NC) again. I pretty much said, okay "I get it" and that I should consider any non answers as a safe assumption that these men who messed up my roof werent either licensed or insured (if not unlicensed, uninsured and illegal aliens). 

Ellen had replied all their roofers were licensed and insured.

But after I shot back with Joan Binmores case in St Pete's beach Florida (Joan having contracted with Home depot for a roof installation where her installers were found to be uninsured) she didnt reply again. And thats a case worth looking into, and what they put this little old woman through.

So briefly (I know this seems long but its not) the man Billy (who was the one here and in charge of all 4 roof installs) has "disappeared" from all of this (not even named in any of their so called investigations)  and is now not the man in charge, because "they are looking for the man", and so far we have had ghosts names (two I never met, dont know, and never announced themselves as ever being in charge). Not one of them.

Billy must disappear (then) if Billy (the one in charge) and his crew were not licensed or insured (just keep that in mind) and ignore the smoke and mirrors around the other two ghost names that have recently appeared on our scene, if someone can put the ones plus ones, or three minus ones together and be somewhat clever to imagine what is going on (good job!) It does appear like two literal strawmen are being build, as least thats how I regard it, like "erect those" (and have at it) verses denying either of their presences (given I cant say they actually were).

But here we are two years into this with the first ghost name (who was never here or in charge) but simply introduced into my situation (as the first to be blamed) has been (certfiably so) scratched off.

AND BECAUSE... this ghost person (Ricky) was "supposedly" hired "to fascilitate only" what this other most recent ghost (Andres) was actually "to execute" as an overseer to the installation (says them) 

Which keeps this Billy (I know, and can identify, along with my husband) under a cloak of darkness (and out of this ordeal) 

If he was unlicensed that would be better concealed, of uninsured (that too) needs new names introduced and some diversions ("a couple smoke and mirrors") and a way out of this (figured out) is that be so.

If anyone catching what I am contemplating? Given all these things which dont make sense except when you rethink it differently. 

I should have called the ghost persons "straw people" though.

And this is actually breif (because I know I am longwinded) and I can be so on purpose, to keep this up at the top and so you must have the gift of gab to do that (which I do).  BUT I left alot out here I only wanted to put out just "a little" of what I felt I was starting to catch, since things just didnt seem straight in this this. The devil is in the details (and a serpent travels crooked, not straight) . However, I do believe that it would have to  take more then just one company or branch or person (for that matter) to pull this off. There would have to be agreements set in the backround I believe.

So thats where we are, this new insurance company sent out a structural engineer and another adjuster this past week (July 7, 2014) I had my husband move his vacation date from August to then so he could be here because I thought I wasnt going to be able to stand for too long by the time they come, but I was just fine and quite able to. We also called nationwide (our insurance) and they sent out their adjuster and provided another structural engineer, and just yesterday July 15, 2014 I had a CIEC  who was reccomended by serve pro come over to have him look things over from his perspective and  get that started and out of the way, and I was glad because he pointed out what no one else did, I should be hearing from him tommorrow, and obtain his report shortly sometime after.

So we are on the second ghosts name (this Andres fella). And no man that I met (who was in charge) or introduced himself as being in charge was named Andres Gonzalez.

But these two names being introduced into this so late (minus the first one now) must be important to have done for some reason. Because even I could have told them a man named Ricky from Lanes wasnt here as the one acting in charge, even as I could with this other fella (Andres) who is now  supposedly the man sent out by Ricky of Lanes) but it was Billy of THD (who was in charge) and thats how he introduced himself. He was the only in charge person there, the rest couldnt speak English but followed what Billy said (and no other). So it seems they are pulling names out of a hat here. And that it is somehow useful for them to do this (this late in the game) for what purpose they are doing this (even as they are nixing the same names they have pulled out of their own hats). Maybe it has to do with continued access into my home? Thats the  only thing I can think of (outside of buying time) because of the way they word needing to come into my home (which is as if my walls will somehow whisper their mans name) or not. I had noticed that, and after their access into my home then they basically say, "nah, its not our guy" (passes the hot potato). Yet that was not found out by them being here (but information "out there). See what I am saying?

Okay, so with the first one (ghost) out of the equation a new mans name comes on the scenes (who I dont know) through this first ghost and another insurance compnay, another adjuster, and another engineer. We are on our second ghost now. Before they arrived on the scene I said something to Kim Allen of Builders mutual concerning being legitimate, and my thoughts on sending people into my home while also knowing full well that the mans name (they named as this second ghost) is not the man who was ever here to begin with. I stated already that I didnt know Ricky (never saw him) now this Andres just the same. The finger pointing come down through THD to where it is now.

And the first man (Ricky) as named (by them) was never here from the start (as they point their finger at him).  I said that before they ever started arriving in our home under the guise (as I see it) "in the of discovery thereof" (of whether) this man (which I know we never met) was the one ever in charge (having no such oversight) here.

I honestly believe there is some deception going on here because of all this, and what I am hoping is that someone here can better interpret what I have been witnessing going on (and who could better decipher how  all this could play into whatever objective is being aimed for).

July 15, 2014, this is where we are over our defective roof install to date.

I will be uploading close to 20 more pictures following this, just to show you what I havent posted before because I couldnt upload from my tablet for a time, and I had to call for some help with this (I am technically challenged). But these include pictures where you can see the light coming in from the roof from the inside of the home. They dont come though so much printing them off as they do through the computer.

×

1 / 18

2 / 18

3 / 18

4 / 18

5 / 18

6 / 18

7 / 18

8 / 18

9 / 18

10 / 18

11 / 18

12 / 18

13 / 18

14 / 18

15 / 18

16 / 18

17 / 18

18 / 18

19 / 18

❮ ❯

Hi everyone, I'm stopping in to give an update, for everyone elses benefit (for the most part).

 Its been about month since an adjuster had come out to look at the home (he seemed less interested in the roof area from an external point of view and viewed the interior).

I havent heard one word back from him or from EllenB (who wrote us that letter I posted earlier). The one telling us she had no idea of who we were (after a year of our house leaking).

I wrote a letter to Citibank on March 18 2014 finished it the next day on March 19 and had it sent on March 20, 2014. It took me so long to complete the letter because it was almost 30 pages long (because its just no secret how long winded I can be) but I was asking them why this very simple investigation has taken so long. Because obviously all inspectors agree the work was crap, how many more need to be obtained to state the obvious?

Just letting anyone following this know I havent heard anything from the adjuster, we still must use a tarp. The last rain a couple weeks back (which I have on video) did come in under the tarp though, my husband has to readjust it, I cant climb up on the exterior and do that (as a help to my husband) because I am disabled, but I also have to watch myself much more carefully around the floor in the atrium (the center of the home) because if I cant see water on the floor and I mistep I could really hurt myself. And because I have a really bad spine that causes me alot of pain already. One slip out there on a tile floor over a concrete slab would have me in a bad way. But this has been going on since the first heavy rainfall last year (Feb-March 2013) till today March 2014 and this is how far we have come.  And this after allowing Home depot installers (more then enough time) even several months to attempt to fix it.

Even though I had not heard from the adjuster I did just receive a letter from Citibank after over 6 months of investigating this. Because they contacted me by letters (October 14, 2013) 30 days of receiving my inquiry  stating it make take an additional 90 days. Now over the phone I was told that it had more to do with the holidays and because of so much fraud they were encountering around that time of year.  

But this portion of the letter (I just received the other day) is identical to the one Justin from Arizon (dated October 12, 2012) on a complaint posted over at consumer affairs who received the same long after his roof was not installed properly (and they were still apparently trying to get it right) even then.

My sister mailed this to me (highlighting it) as she is following this closely as is my family in PA and Florida

But pay attention to the highlighted parts

ARTICLE ON HOME DEPOT TAKING BACK CREDIT APPLIED TO CARD:

I purchased a roof for my home from Home Depot in April 2011 and have been fighting since to have it properly installed. I paid with my Home Depot credit card. During one of my many calls to the customer service department, I was asked if I wanted to dispute the charge. I agreed it was worth disputing and that my roof (still to this day) is not satisfactorily installed. The dispute was opened on May 9th, 2012.

The dispute was finalized in my favor and $12,110.00 was provisionallycredited to my account on September 9th, 2012 with a note that if further “significant evidence” was found that the amount would be reapplied to my account.

You can read it in full over at

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/home_depot_roofing.html

Its the same playbook, even as my letter says the same likewise....

See?

So, Im just letting you know I received basically the same response Justin has received.

And Meg Marco, wrote on what was called a national epidemic of fraud (back in 2007) which was being perpetuated  in some kind of intentional and systematic ways against Home depot customers seems right on. Its almost like following the same playbook, regardless.

But okay, so what, both myself and Justin get the same response for an improperly insalled roof, lets look at what happened in Justins case (for those curious as to how it might go with YOU if there is anything wrong with your roof and you take it up with them)

Heres what Justin testifies of

I purchased a roof for my home from Home Depot in April 2011 and have been fighting since to have it properly installed. I paid with my Home Depot credit card. During one of my many calls to the customer service department, I was asked if I wanted to dispute the charge. I agreed it was worth disputing and that my roof (still to this day) is not satisfactorily installed. The dispute was opened on May 9th, 2012. The dispute was finalized in my favor and $12,110.00 was provisionally credited to my account on September 9th, 2012 with a note that if further “significant evidence” was found that the amount would be reapplied to my account. I called the customer service and asked what “significant evidence” would entail and how much more investigation would there be.

I asked these questions as $12,110.00 is a lot of money and with the initial letter opening the dispute claimed that the initial investigation could take up to 60 days, and by the time I received the letter stating that the charge had been reversed was 128 days, double what was quoted. I was told that it was closed and no further investigation would be completed. However, around October 1st, 2012 I received a phone call from the Phoenix office asking if someone could come down and inspect the roof and make sure that everything was taken care of. On October 6th, 2012 a gentleman came down to my house and instead of getting out a ladder to get on the roof, he pulled out some paperwork. He explained that this form was a copy of a previous form that I had signed and that the person who had the form in Atlanta “had died” and because they “had died, no one can find the paperwork that was originally signed”.

Reviewing the paperwork, I noted that the form was a Customer Service Order form and stated that the work to be completed was to fix some exposed nails, torn shingles, and repaint the metal trims and that those specific items were completed. It also states that the balance remaining was $0.00. With the suspicious circumstances surrounding this, I asked the gentleman if this had anything to do with the disputed charge. I was told that it had nothing to do with the charges and that it was only replacing a lost form. I reluctantly signed the form, the gentleman never did go on top of the roof and he left. Several weeks later, I received a letter dated October 18th, stating that the $12,110.00 has been reapplied to my account and that “Additional information has been received that provided significant evidence for the amount to be reapplied to your account.” Attached to the letter was a faxed copy of the form I signed on October 6th, 2012.

This was clearly a scam to trick me into signing a form stating that the roof had be satisfactorily completed in an attempt to defraud me of the amount that was returned to me. This is obviously a bait-and-switch, which is an illegal practice in the United States. I am writing for corrective action in returning the credit of $12,110.00 back to my account. Home Depot cheated me out of a properly installed roof, and then scammed me into paying for it after the disputed charges were dropped from my account; permanently re-credit the $12,110 back to my account, zeroing my balance.

Now, in our case, we paid the whole thing (all four contracts) except a small portion around $900 (even several months after) because they were still trying to fix it several months after the fact and making it worse (and not better) and just couldnt fix it. And because Citibank (on the back of their billing statement) says not to have it paid off (in order to) have a claim with them). And it cant get anymore obvious that this roof install was not only against code, and manufacturer reccomendations but my home was being destroyed by whatever kind of SKILLED workmanship was being exercised on our home, we arent even certain these guys were licensed (under the HD license) because they werent skilled, and of insurance, they seem clueless.

 As for me, approaching it through Citibank just appeared a much more cordial way of dealing with the situation verses going to small claims court for each contract, even as I would have rather dealt without the courts because people with a moral compasses can do that, but not sure after reading what I have online. 

I never experienced this kind of dishonable behavior, whether directed at bad customers as was seen in the news (or good ones, who actually pay). And maybe I just dont get out much, but Im really glad I dont after this. And this experience (which I know in my gut isnt over) even though its been over a year of this is utterly ridiculous and there should be a law. This experience has definately changed my mind concerning box stores, or using a credit card (whether associated with one) or not again.

After spending this year reading what this company (Home depot) and its affiliates have done in the past (and continue to do) to people (even  they testify) concerning these tactics Im thankful for them (the witnesses that speak up). Even reports from years past (of former employees) some of which sound out (in the today) along with them on what still seems to be  as intentional (and systematic) as it was then.

Even all of this game playing, trying to set a trap for customers is corrupt.

 I personally consider all of this a kind of (financial) terrorism which preys upon unsuspecting people and which seeks their harm (even financially so) especially after they have already experienced some kind of other harm by the same company. For example, damages to their home (which are undeniable) and simply because they were unfortunate in the very chosing (of them) believing they could actually do something right. But then (if your not satisfied) and for a very good reason) it ends up just preying on them in various ways.

I am just sharing an update, seems like a decent gesture, but given the internet is an endless source of information you can pull up the same (as shown in other cases) very easily and show what might appear as good news (on the surface) isnt and show in the end (in a pace like this) the similarities (so to warn others) as to what might be just around the bend for you (so to make you more the wiser).

My loss (even Justins loss) but your gain (even if only to see how it plays out) and so you can be sharper to it all.

And there are far more of you (all) who might be able to connect these dots a little bit easier now. Which is what I wanted to help you guys do (even for yourselves) if you find yourself stuck and going through the same thing (if something in your job has gone wrong too).

But when it looks like its good news (its typically not). They do play games with you (just so you know). They even have others call your home and appologetically make promises to you,  saying so much as Home depot is sorry for your experience, and for all you have gone through and the damages (so they seem like they will make good on a thing but they dont). Even after they call and promise to take care of everything (so have your recorders ready to go) because not all states have a two party consent rule to being recorded (as mine doesnt). They have said one thing over the phone (only to have someone else call the same evening to reverse it) as was the case with Bola there (calling me) who I mention in the above.

Same thing can be shown on the charges (they wont even tell you why they have suddenly changed their minds) in your favor (for now) which had finally reached that half year (6 month marker) but even shortly after that marker they are shown systematically reversing them. I believe that is what Meg points out on the KNBC report (and after looking into so many customers complaints nationwide). That both systematic (and intentional) seem to be a very good choice of words since you can almost follow it as off a playbook.

 As in Justins case and soon to find an example in my own case (just wait). 

They dont seem to have an adress for a certified letter to be sent, even though I have asked a couple of times for disputes, its a P.O box (seen at the top of the letter)

I do believe was the answer to the dispute is to be screwed over (somewhat like the settlement release agreement) where you are stuck with the damages (see the wording on that agreement, which I posted here for all to read).

 But the same wording seems to follow their direct response even here, where it seems like they were all working on that "provisionally credited" thing from the start (even bringing Citibank into the end of it) and "my obligations" over the smallest portion of the sum because the ruin to my home is almost twice the cost of the contract and cant afford to mitagate thousans of dollars of broken glass and them besides the fact it was mandatory for a small portion (of some kind) to remain in order to have a claim (at all). Whether $900 or a $1 see what they do to people on line over that. Stay away from box stor credit cards.

 They dont seem to vindicate anyone over all the harm you that had come to you through it, there seems to be a pattern of preying on the one who is hurt (more). Like if you have damages they encircle you (prey on their anxiety) like the weaker in our nation, like the elderly, or disabled. Crap that has always been (in some way) just like way back where devouring widows homes was vogue.

But  it seems to make no difference that our home is destroyed because of this faulty install, the only thing they care about is getting out from any obligation to make it right or seeing it as an opportunity (now) in your being "spent" from doing what they should have been doing and seek to punish their victims financially which is why I see this happening as financial terrorism. Because I personally believe (now) that they use the complaint process (in coming in through them) as another way to make gains of people (even through bad workmanship). Choosing to use this as a means into (this) paying customers pocketbook (this way). 

That option is not about you (as if anyone cares for you, thats a delusion) it just about the interest. To push back what is so simple (as far as such an obvious wrong done) show (if just a little) how systematically it is set up against the customer). 

And this is very good for you guys to see as it comes into fruition here because you will know never to take this through that route, which is offerd (as I now believe it to be) as an opportunity for your own demise. 

I believe this latest letter puts out a little space (even ten days) to its response of "kind of sort of".  At the end of the dispute, that is it? We will provisionally credit your account (and since its really still open) that would be until an evidence shows up sufficient enough to reapply it all back to you (as they have always intended).

In Justin's case it was about 20 days (or just double that) before a new turn began to emerge which I believe shows the same pattern of bs.

Where is John Stossel or all the investigational journalists of this nation?

I sure hope some kind of consumer advocate group is taking notes in the backround, but I somehow doubt that, so, I'd advocate you (all) be careful when you do business with certain entities.

I was really hoping for a very non eventful purchase, something like chaging out the wax ring under your toilet. You know, "thanks, and see you when the seal breaks in a few years", know what I mean? I cant even drive past a Home depot store without feeling ill to my stomach.

But be careful because not all companies (even corporations) have a moral compass but  a love for money guiding them(even yours). And alot of the time the harm that comes to you becomes more of an opportunity for them to close in on you only to take more from you.

Sad but I found this to be very true in my experience and in others (as I have read). 

Welp, I never posted the last one that has todays date in what is called a "draft" in my report area.

 I was trying to delete some things by highlighting and back spacing but it kept asking me if I wanted to leave the page (but I didnt) and I then proceeded to delete manually (using back space) because I had double posted  in that post and just wanted to repost starting fresh. Im so not good at this.

 But anyway, this is where I started, but minus the links, so I am adding these into here.

And because I had a funny feeling the insurance might try for all this being one big pre existing condition. In fact after I received my claim number from Home depot, I said so much to EllenF over at Corporate when I told her about the stupidest "stains" conversation (or drill, rather) and asked, "what was with the ridiculous stains questioning?" You had to be there but it was actually "the way"  he was asking after this (over the phone). Do you have proof? Of what? Of stains? But not of claiming stains (in this present leaking roof) but more like how can you prove that the water  coming in now wasnt just going over older pre existing stains?

See what I mean? The conversation was so ridiculous.

Most of us have seen Rambo, and  saw "who drew first blood" but in this case it was "who drew first stain"?

Okay, so from here on out I pretty much knew (in my gut) they were going to "go there" even before I was told to gather estimates.

One of the companies I called for an estimate was Rainbow international (they do water damage). I was given a real nice guy named MichaelF. He had come over and looked at my atrium to estimate the water damages. And so knowing this already about their intent I told Michael to remove from their estimated cost one side of the paneled cedar undersides. That three would suffice and I would pick up the cost of one entire side of cedar. I wanted this area done still (knowing full well all those stains on one side were not pre existing) but that we would pay for that side.

I did that having knowledge of their expressed intent (to "adjust" things more then fairly). And because when I look up what adjusters do, for example (lets say, in an injury claim) they tend to do the same to people who have been injured (in the present) looking for evidences of these same type of things (in any past things) so as to put full blame on you (and remove their own liability).

Now, I had also told EllenF that Rainbows estimate varied from over the phone to what was written, and I called to ask Michael why this was so and he said they wanted to just prepare the under side and not do the roof. He told me with the roof it was the $5000 quoted (or thereabouts) but without it was the figure in the estimate around $3000. I had mentioned so much in an email to EllenF at corporate (which I can provide). I mentioned the same to the adjuster last week, but he read (to me) out of it that it includes the roof. I dont know what to say to that because Michael said no to doing the roof section (and just sayin'). I am so up for another estimate to make this crystal clear.

Now whatever measurements are in there I haven't a clue, anyone who knows me knows numbers aren't my strong point, I only know what I said, and it was to exclude one side of the cedar paneling out of the estimated figure (knowing this was where their intent was to "deny" or "adjust") So I figured if I "over adjusted those few inches into an entire side of the atrium, they could see that I had made more then enough of a provision for it.

Just for the sake of avoiding an argument, or letting this drag on anymore, that type of thing. That I had in all good faith did my part (and was more then fair) etc.

So, this could just be going in that predictable direction, so buyers beware if you have come so far as to actually have an adjuster show up. And this is where a short video recording just prior to them ever touching your home is more to your advantage.

Even though the Home depot's roof estimator lists no pre existing conditions in that portion of the contract (See attached copy showing it is blank). Nothing written in there concerning pre existing conditions.

Also see (just below it) and under the section of "addition charges".  And there in respects to "discovering" any damaged or rotten wood from the top down (which they wouldn't be able to see yet (from that view point) unless severely warped.

No additional charges were charged me either, because as none were written, none were ever found.

But now I do have stained, loosened, warped and rotting wood under their workmanship.

Whereas in the November 14, 2002 I had very two insignificant stains noted as "major faults" on a roof that was just two years old then. Much older then Home depots roof, which is now one year old which has laden the interior with water stains over the first part of the first year (mostly) while it was in constant repair. Now warping (which has begun in January) which is the time I noticed it (and video recorded how I caught it). But even as the boards have began pulling away from the top.

So I aware of these two tiny stains (I had the report) I even shared that report (with them). Like look, I had two zits (but now I have 150 zits) there is a "difference" here (before and after). I had mentioned the same to our Home depot estimator while walking around in there as he was looking for any pre existing conditions. Apparently he could not even see (for the insignificance of them) the ones pictured on the inspectors report back in Nov 2002 (which was 12 years ago). It didn't mean they weren't there, I sure don't have the best vision myself, but to me it meant they were easy to overlook.

Whereas none of the staining present due to this installation is easy to overlook. its impossible to miss (at all)

 We get a lot of "WHOAS! what the heck happened in here"?! 

Then of course, that mouth opening opens up to us the opportunity to share our Home depot experience with them.

So we have that (the inspection prior). The witness of the Ace Glass installers, who was out having previously inspected it prior to Home depots installers working on it. I have the unwritten witness of Home depots own report, which would be the absence of anything noted in the pre existing section of their own contract.

They always say to me, "contract, contract, contract"

Not to mention another conversation concerning "adjusting" costs. One that I spoke to MichaelF of Rainbow about, when he was estimating the four sides of cedar panels (under where the shingles are installed part). I told MichaelF not to estimate one underside side into their equation (knowing from a conversation with Sedgwick) that this is where they would intend to go to refuse the claim. So I thought it wise to take out an entire underside (or one side out of four) to show all fairness. Which is way beyond fair because anyone can measure and see that in no way do those two pictures constitute an entire side of this atrium.

I do know this, but I am trying to show you all something in this too, and in my own being "more than" fair. 

This appears to be following a predictable direction. Which is allmost like following a playbook, especially after reading other online testimonies by other people (who, thank God) speak up.

Since Sedgwick contacted me and there was some crazy "stain conversation" which began to sound like an Abbott and Costello (who is on first?) conversation, it has become more evident (at least to me) where these will seek to deny this claim (in using some like tactic). So I just wanted to make a note of it today 3/4/2014. And perhaps give others a heads up (if you are going through the same thing) because you will be the one on trial in your own home when the adjuster come out.

See attachments, roofs age in inspection report (which was in 2002, or 12 years ago)

See attachment of the 7 pictures taken in 2002 (or twelve years ago)

See attachment of no pre existing conditions (in 2013, last year) in Home depots own contract and other various date

See an invoice of one of that mentioned date

See attachment of explanation of the 7 pictures (cut off the bottom)

See the second page of the explnation

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

Okay, so EllenB sent an adjuster out, you know with the little ear pieace camera deal, and He was just an absolute peach if you know what I mean (sarcasm intended).

He started off low key and then built steam.  Its probably  common in this area to use lawyer like pressure tactics in conversation (or when asking questions). It was more like lawyery (court room) type questioning (yes or no) no additional information please! (Ofcourse not) Sound bites we can work against. Alot of "stay with me's" after having asking me for one thing (as I was looking through either the calender or the pile of paperwork to find what he asked for). Then he seemed to get impatient and would begin into asking for another thing then "forget" whatever the first thing was that he asked for (even as I was handing to him). Im thinking, "I guess not" then? I dont think he really wanted it but just testing to see what I had (or didnt have) or something. Because if he really wanted what he asked for then why did he leave it go when I offered it to him?

Then he would ask for the date of something I had just mentioned and if I could not recall it off the top of my head  (in a blink of an eye) he seemed to get a little "hands thrown up in the air" about it. Like he couldnt even wait for me to walk over to my calender (flip it to the month it was on) in order to provide him with the correct answer (which he seemed to ask for) but then seemed annoyed when I was trying to provide it. 

I think I said something like needing a pill (because he did seem to need one)

And so this is pretty much what has come of having water leaks (through an installation with Home depot) has come to a year later.

 And so they sent over someone more like one of those pressure snakey lawyer types. One who probably lost his job, and just adjusting or just following what seems very systematic in approach through every level of this thing.

Whatever the job, is you really need to check you conscience in at the door for it.

I was suppose to show any videos if I had them and he sorta snorted at one because he asked the date and I had to check on the calender (where I write these things down). And just because I am technically challenged and just learning that tablet thing, and Im no good at this stuff. He had no patience with any of that, not spitting it out fast enough. and hey, sorry. Felt more like a testing ground for court, pushing buttons that way. He seemed delighted that my answers were not falling jot and jittle under what would go on in a court of law for some reason, even though we were not in one. I mean afterall in a court room your lawyer (or a good one) would ask you again to expound upon what you meant (here) or there or anywhere else.

So, I bought a roof at Home depot and I am given good reason (per the inside of my home) to distrust the installation of it, so shoot me. I just dont have peace of mind about it and would like to  (they advertise so much).

So it was one of those WHAT DO YOU WANT???!!!! Type deals, and I really wasnt all that strict about it, the roof is coming off in time either way because I dont trust the workmanship, and I dont see how integrating new shingles in together with rusty, bent up (and very unlike new condition) flashings are a happy pair. Obviously they are not. And the same folks that discerned (against the manufacturers recommendation) and IRC code (which allows for the same) did what they did up there.

So what do I WANT???!!!

I sort of imagine some guy with his eyes bugging out of his head (with a sort of constipated look on his face)

But I can say it various ways, I want (overall a working roof) which is integrated according to the manufacturers recommendations of doing things.

My out of pocket glass costs, sure.

I believe that is a good, just and right thing to do.

Would be nice to get reccompensed for the glass, and for the waterstained warped wood so we can have a decent base (like the one we started with) to have another new roof installed

And for any potential buyer, a certifcate of some sort to offer them to show them, "look, regardless of all of this and all this time it doesnt have mold".

I mean insurance doesnt cover this, and how could I ask someone to check their brains in at the door over this, they would have a point, and who would be stuck wheeling and dealing losses over these folks wrestlings over such a decision? "Us" ofcourse.

 I just didnt think that was unreasonable, they could say no, and we would just go forward and have to do the test ourselves. I dont see what the big deal is.

 It seems (in going in this route) the person making the claim that the new roof (which was just installed) isnt working (meaning, water has come into the house) and thus stains all over the underside of it is likely "making things" up. I mean thats how ridiculous it seems to be getting. 

You are put on trial pretty much, or thats how they want to make you feel.  Seemed like an uptight man. But the whole scene (as you can imagine it) going forward is like imaging what watching too much TV has done to this nation. And its like watching someone trying to make their own segment of law and order where it could get so over fabricated its ridiculous. And just to get out of making good, on your loss (they created, and should insure for) not you.

And WHY this latter inspection???

So, why get an inspection so late too? Well because no other inspector took pics insides. EllenF from Home Depot (on a monitored phone call) had expressed her anger (at, or to me) I cant figure out which concerning their own inspector never coming in to inspect the inside of the home. I felt she had a point, so I took it upon myself to get another inspector to do both together, and this just a few weeks behind their own to have it documented for any who cared at all.

So I am being asked in one letter (by this claims) to provide something for the April 1, 2013 install, I call Sedgwick and say she seems lost (or maybe not) maybe this is right on track, I dont know yet I will know as I go along (before you even dare get on this train).

I provide copies of the second and third roofs contract (because one is referred in the other) and the second (or the atrium area rather is of the second) for the most part.

Then what happens? The adjuster wants all my roofs contracts because this claims person doesnt have these things or they want to know what I have (and dont) which supposedly has something to do with April 1 (and I notice some of you are wondering on that one, I'm with you, me too!) But now, its no longer April's but thats just sort of "sprung on me"

So, what can I do? I told him I would send it to him in the mail, he provided a P.O box (they are always fun) cant send anything certified to them to "make sure"). So I said, be sure to let me know if you dont get them this week because I would be willing to send them to another adress I can send it certified to.

He wouldnt take with him 1 of 11 pages of pictures of the home (insideand out) because I had failed to put a name connected to the photo. Although the ones on the front were my husbands, and the others from the other two inspectors, just ones I had uploaded online and wanted to be sure they had them all.

They could inform you that if you bring in additional pictures, you must put a name to each picture (of your own roof). If its too clear maybe they can attack your character or something (Like on TV) it becomes admissible without a name tag or something?

So, thats where I am. He seemed to be relishing in the fact I provided a inspectors picture of this home in 2002 just before we moved in. Which indeed shows some slight stains, two in fact. Which to me shows validates that they were the only faults the inspector could dig up (for me) in the atrium, and that pertained to the cedar paneling (back then). And heres the thing, he was being paid to find those faults and thats all he had.

I'll show you the two (as I provided the same to them) out of our homes inspection report.

The cedar would be under the plywood, the cedar being the "dry wall" (so to speak) of the internal area and the pictures (see the scan of the 2002's inspection page) and there are two stains noted by our inspector along with a fan that is not snug to the ceiling (and it still isnt to this day) and breaker box cover (which was replaced). And a boot on the roof (which was corrected) and the other small things. 7 pictured (in all).

God forbid your roof leaks (and they cant fix it) and you are sorely dissapointed that your house (now) completely sucks.

You could be me (doing this) a year later over an identical situation.

I have a few other posts that have not posted yet. If this posts too far out Today is 2-26-2014 and "Sweet Peaches" come out around 1:45 PM.

Another thing, is the pressing to repair it when it didn't make any sense to anything but replace. That's part of their one year obligation and it would have never had made a lick of difference between that an a tarp, its all temporary. Because it should come up when its over warped wood (as an interior inspection following the exterior inspection has shown). Now if only I can upload videos from my tablet, I am having so much trouble doing this. Pictures have been easier, I have to see if I can have someone else do this for me.

This is the quality service you would be buying (see my the pics) because it could be your house this is happening to, and just over a leak. Whereas all they do is squirt repair all your old stuff all year waving "repair, repair repair" at me (which is not the same as replace). See my repairs, which look like mangled metal cupcakes, so that's their job apparently. I asked for new, so I wouldn't have to see them endlessly at my home repairing my old crap.

That's more likely why the former inspector didn't fit their idea of a decent one according to their own contract which needed an inspector who would speak according to their terms (of repair) not the other inspector (even two others) concerning  "replacement of" (and one of them, "in its entirety") was the recommendation of the first inspector. I even asked for the replacement of all my flashings and didn't get them. 

First inspector, in short

Second inspector, explains why more

He advises that a structural engineer come out not knowing

Home depot had sent one who writes,

Feb 3, 2014 Branch installation manager writes to basic reference the inspector Home depot sent out writing

The independent inspector (who only works for commercial entities from what I was told) also wrote

So the house is going to crap (the inspector never enters the home). He can visibly see all the squirty stuff in the metal flashings (in the various attempts made) in their endless "repairs" over several months. None of which fixed the ongoing problems. He supposedly doesn't know about the purchase agreement (whether new flashings were chicken scratched in or not) but in his estimate (as a  structural engineer) he advises "a repair" on my old metal flashings? Are you kidding?  Concerning which flashing the manufacturer (who I also have a warranty through for its shingles) does not agree with, and their warranty (that comes up behind the craftsman) can be made void over shoddy craftsmanship, GAF expresses no approval (whatsoever) for their own new shingles and old crap metal flashings to be united  (in the first place). See video at the top.

Now the contract also lists (which are generic between them)

"Special considerations"  when its asking for LOCATIONS OF various metal flashings ( which I wanted and asked for) gutters (Which I had) did not want (nor received) and mentions soffit/fascia

These are those things which are typical "special" in respects to them.

And not only did I name the metal flashings, I was also specific to the LOCATION in the atrium. It is not written clearly which pertains to the atrium there (in respects to them) but I cannot tell a man how to write roofing terms they speak by (to one another) when you ask for something and he writes it down. I sure don't know how you all speak to one another while chicken scratching. Regardless I was told so much come with the roof in the various ways previously posted on.

 Besides the point, of what I can read of that section mentions such locations over certain areas where such is indicated (under metal flashings) and particularly of the atrium section. 

HOWEVER in the third contract (in that same exact box) where it states in the "Special considerations" is named what my husband had pointed out (even back then). Or rather, what we could see of what was missing (since we all know the others can be hidden) as is the case in this as well . And my in home estimator named those there (right under it) and of that area and without formerly (or in the second install) ever specifying these by name. They are pictured above already, and called Metal end caps (4 of them). And notice there was no charged added to (the third install) for what was supposedly paid for already. The price of the third contract is $4963.00 whereas the third install is $4221.00.

 I have 4 roofs. Only three are equally estimated at $4221.00 except for the second (at $4963.00) where the atrium is tied into). The estimator wrote on the third installation estimate which was for the garage area that these (4 metal end caps) belonged to that particular install (or the one previous to it). Although never installed (These are found in the third contract) to "go back and add them" which is proof enough it was not understood or some other miscommunication. Or something not understood between estimator and installer. It was not some new request but "from" the last install

These things, covered in goopy stuff are the caps that were to go at each of the 4 corners of the atrium)



They keep saying REPAIR metal flashings (I get it) and this a picture of what GAF might call pathetic and warranty voiding and I keep saying REPLACE (they are not the same thing) I understand that too now. But when I wanted my ROOF REPLACED I was THOSE end caps you guys keep REPAIRING with goopy stuff (REPLACED)

After all my estimator acknowledges the same, I spoke to him last month twice, as well as right after it started leaking he has acknowledged the same, he is like the only one saying what Home depot ads are putting out.

How spiffy, here's what new (in color) fascia looks like which falls under special considerations under metal flashings also,



This contract, estimated in March 2013

And you wanna hear the real kicker here?

Whether those metal end caps were written down or not (in either of the contracts) it didn't matter so much either way. There was really no end caps coming even when they were written down (and very clearly). If they appear to miss something (on their end) this is what you will most likely go through too the whole year.

Look at their condition GAF would not approve of what was installed that way, not one single contractor or inspector (not paid by them) have. Look for an inspector that does things more along the lines (and agreement) with the maker of your shingle because what the former does is also tied in with voiding the latter. doesn't approve of doing with new shingles what you shouldn't. Or against what the manufacturer promotes. Any roofer worth his salt ( in this case), lets say, GAF's specifications for that shingle would not have joined the two products together.   

Kevin (the branch manager) basically says that  Home depot (who there, I don't know). But that entity called Home depot considers the REPAIR of my old metal crap. Of the which also are those metal end caps. Which we both asked for and after (and are the roof candy we are stuck with). And for what reason? Because  their own inspector of their own work (the guy they hired) gave the much more convenient (for them) recommendation (IMHO). This, rather then looking at the whole of the situation (damage done) risk and cost (which was before as nothing) and what should have never been installed together.  So they will REPAIR my old metal crap (basically) NOT REPLACE my metal flashings, inclusive my 4 metal end caps.

And this is how it goes.....

I called my lender today, the insurance department just to let them in on whats going on here and the women (M, I will call her) said our lender is calling meetings with their staff on this issue and some of the things that have been brought to their attention, but in a much broader sense of things. So for this I am glad, they have informed me that I am not the first they have heard from on this going on. And this in reapects to the rock and the hard place my own home owners insurance has put me in,

If the claim doesn't take too long, I don't know, I have only read online how that goes, but now I get to see for myself (and share the same with other consumers reading "rip off"). Because if you cant save yourself save others while showing them how it could all go down (for them) in the same circumstances in the present.

And now, its just so that you know (being made aware) so that you can make a far better choice then we did in purchasing this roof because I dont see a job done right (not the first time) or after several times. Not  an ounce of peace of mind in it. A year later to the date of this part to repair my old flashings? Who required this of them on my part? Where is my new ones?

If you are opting for a GAF shingle you would be far better going  to GAF site and obtaining one of their certified installers  (who don't have a pro-rate) and much better warranty's. You can read up on them over there. New flashings and various other components were listed in the estimate (just for my own sanity) and one of their installers were $5000 less then Home depot (and that's a lot of savings). Seriously do yourself a favor, paying more money as I did at Home depot did nothing other then buy me an expensive headache.

I would encourage going so far as having as much as you can on video, just so you can share the things you learned through it. Could make for a pretty decent you tube channel too consumers working to the end. And it doesn't necessarily mean you must do so for a court of law, because a lot more would stand (even remain in their pockets) when consumers see so much outside of the bench (and concrete building). Where justice doesn't need a buck (to enter in)  and where so many more can keep your dollars and do business elsewhere (allowing you be the judge)

I cant view my last entry, I hope i didnt add these already, because I had to comb through something I did and Im just plain tired, getting ready to hit the sack.

I never saw this video on the BBB, By Joseph Rhee and Brian Ross via 20/20 have you?

And because here is where false advertising can come in too

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843

The video can also take the mystery out of the not so big a deal about the below

I know you can buy vowels on the Wheel of fortune

Third of four contracts

Tell me how this doesn't even lend any credibility to what I have been saying all along, and I have it in writing on the contract.

Our atrium was the second roof installed (just so you know). Our garage is over where the third roof would be installed. 

Now, it was after the second roof (the one the atrium is tied in with) was installed, that my husband noticed (and he could because you can see our roof from the ground) the caps were missing. The ones we asked for, even as we asked for ne flashings . And he asks me, "where are our metal end caps"?  Because we really did request them having understood one thing the importance of removing "chance" (and a bad one) if and when you could. This roof was paid off as we went, we weren't hurting for a discount, why these were taken away from us every step of the way just makes no sense. So when the third roof was being worked (after we had it put back on the contract) at the time it was being estimated I even asked Billy about them, "Got those end caps"?

So I have just been tapping everyone on the shoulder about this,  and what we could actually see wasn't there (but had been asked for over and over again). And because my husband insisted I keep asking, through the installation. But  you get that wink and a nod thing (yeah, we'll take care of that, don't you worry stuff). They don't seem to hear much of anything you ask for pertaining to the job. Its like whether you say something it doesn't matter (because its not written down) and yet  whether its written down (or not) you will not receive it either way, See?

 After the fact its me who is the pain in the rear, and they begin full blown denial that you bought any of it, even though you bought the job (being sold on what they never installed). And because of which things really because the job was never a deal.

Whatever was on the other roof we wanted them REPLACED. We had three old ones and we wanted all NEW asking for FOUR. Its like a no brainer, it doesn't have to get real technical.

Now notice he at least wrote down 4 new ones on the third contract (for that which pertained to the second install). And where he did was easy for me to understand these (in particular) should be under the special consideration part. Given they are not something installed on every home. But they were metal parts (and new ones) we opted for to replace the old. I would never (ever) have opted for old flashings to be used reseal a 30 year old commercial sized glass atrium. Skylight whether large or small are known to be some tricky areas. I always try to err on the side of caution when I can.

And so when my husband asked where they were, I said, I don't know we had asked (and I honestly thought these were no big deal) and just said, maybe they didn't get them in the delivery or something? I will call him and let him know that we just didn't receive those. And he was real good about it. And since we were getting the garage re roofed, I would be sure to remind him again when estimating that part.

And there was no extra charge ever added to the third roof's estimate for that (belonging to the second) because it was mutually understood that we had asked and had paid for those (along with all the new flashings we requested). And I was very much led to believe I was paying so much more for these things. However the only things I couldn't see (which we should be able to) was those new caps. The other flashings (that is more hidden) wasn't revealed to us until after the leaking went on for several months before calling an inspector who made clearer what the glass company had said, its all messed up with all your old stuff in it.

So the installing of 4 end caps (which falls under the metal flashings section) are more specifically mentioned in the third roofs contract. Even there as something pertaining to the last install (which was the 2nd roof).

That written note is found in our third roofs contract under the whole "special considerations"

It says, "Install (4) End Caps on Atrium from the last install  (and there is no charge added to this contract because WE did pay for them).

But heres the thing, whether it was written (as it was on the third roofs contract) or not written as it wasn't on the second roofs installation page, they were never installed regardless.

If I say I paid for them they say I did not because none of my metals were ever written down in the second roofs notes, and only the 4 metal end caps were (oopsied into) or carried over into the third roofs contract. Likewise the mention of the 4 end caps  is there (and no other charges were charged) because he knew I asked, and he says (even to this day) that these were supposed to be included in the installation of a roof.

Job done right the first time stuff

So, even though the same was overlooked on their part (meaning not written down), it shows (at least) that I did ask for what does fall under "special considerations" (for that second install) but shown in the estimate of the third install. These falling under what is "special" (not included) in respects to any metal flashings. And it makes sense that these would be considered "special considerations" because not everyone has an atrium with their asphalt roof. And they advertise new flashings should come with the roof installation. And because of the same the homeowner wouldn't think to question all the affirmatives they have better getting from just about everywhere on them regardless of the special considerations list on the contract. Or in any respects proving (either one way or another) what might not appear in small writing in there "somewhere" as what kinds, the included kind, or the special consideration kind.

This was way back (worth a watch over at you tube)

If you are going through this, hang in there. Offer to give your story to a local news station, even if it doesnt yeild anything toward you, it could help the helpless who need a voice,  I mailed mine to my local station, and because we are all pretty much nationwide (online) but what is done locally ripples out nationwide over the internet pretty fast

Forgive me for any repeats in the second half of this post (if they are there) I dont know what I did there

I wanted to post a few of these letters here, because its pretty hard to show folks things when they are divided into pieces and why you might find what looks to be "generous" more of a trap. In the middle of copying everything I have into two piles (and having used two sets of ink cartridges) my last black ink cartridge is on "E". Because I would like to upload a copy of the warranty (in black and white) verses what is in more of a light brown and tan and harder to see until I do. And I cant until that comes in.

So let me just put these up here (I dont know why the other two image links failed in the above post I am technically challenged here (and trying my best).

I actually thought I included the "final offer" of settlement and agreement in one of my earlier posts, and found that I was mistaken, that I did not.

Thats below (if you click on it each one should get big enough to read for normal sighted folks).

All four contracts  mentioned together in this Feb 3, 2014 letter, and the offer to REPAIR extended according to their inspectors findings (who never entered the house) and who also states he hasnt read the contract (and who would amend his opinions if more information was provided)***

OR if you choose not to allow the repair (noted above) Home depot indeed offers a FULL refund upon verification of all products have been removed and an execution of a settlement and release agreement

Which at first that seems very reasonable, but I cannot sign it unless I acknowledge the fact that I fully understand what it is I am signing and I can only go by how its worded, and it seems to be against us, having us holding the bag of goods for their damages and I will explain why beneath it some.

Here is that settlement and release agreement (You can click to enlarge)***

When they mean repair they are speaking of this

They speak to their inspector who never saw the inside of the home (with its wood warping, boards loosening and  water damage and advises to repair the situation by repairing the metal flashings and new shingles (from above). So he is somewhat out of the loop of things, and his recommendation comes through being ignorant of the contracts too, even as he admits so much. And retains the right to amend his opinions (which work for Home depot installers) but not for me (for yet another repair job) when they screwed up never having provided my first requested replacements (from the start)

Heres more of the repaired metal flashings stuffs, and here is the end caps in the contract

And tell me what YOU see?***

Does that look like My NEW (requested) and/or even REPLACED ones to anyone? 

Me neither

 But again, that is also what a REPAIRED (not replaced) metal flashing looks like, its been done since its been installed Feb of 2013 (and its Feb 2014 now) can you say ridiculous?

How much confidence would you have in ANOTHER repair (even a seventh one) under the direction of an inspector who never saw the inside damage (or what lie beneath) for over a year (even before he ever arrived)? He acknowledges such a situation provides for the elements to enter in but is quite unaware (even by his own choosing) of the warped and water damaged wood and the shifting boards beneath this mess.

And he advises? to pile on repairs over the already warped and damaged wood beneath it? How on earth does this remedy do anything but put concealer on a zit? Its an unnecessary "show" that they (in so called good faith) followed to the letter an inspector who had in part knowledge, in fact Kevin (branch manager hadnt even bothered to enter the home to see it either. 

My home just really needs to be protected from these people (is what it needs). It was sound healthy and working just fine before they come and it become endlessly sick patient (because of them) in a bad surgeons hands.

But lets move on because they cant make it any more clearer that they goofed and didn't give me my stuff. And that my GAF factory certified inspector is basically "full of it". Way to turn the recommendation of the contractor GAF lists on their own website to nothing much.

 How good is such a warranty by Home depot to tie the hands of home owners into its supposedly skilled installers verses someone who is both recommended and certified by GAF. I cant even obtain his competent help to fix it (or we lose any claims) according to their own warranty, but they drag their feet on the claim, see? Its even more  ridiculous when you can see the house doesn't work because of their creative "integration" of things that should not go together. So, their repairs have not down much so far (but to set things upon it to the voiding of whatever manufacturer is left for us). Only in what is not screwed up (already) through Home depots (supposedly) "skilled" craftsmen

And on the heels of this Feb 12, 2014 letter***

In other word's (over a year later) even as year after the first leak (until now) You rang?

Doesn't know my name, asks, "what's this about?" 

Is it Um (The third roof) installed on April 1 2013???

But where'd she get that specific little piece of wrong information since the insured performed the work for all four of the roofs Under four different contracts? How does she not know my name but has been given the date of the contract (that follows after the problematic one)? See what I mean? And this letter comes on the heels of that settlement and release agreement? I received an actual response (from someone in claims) with wrongly dated material? 

This thing is actually looking like one big April fools joke. 

But back to the settlement and agreement release because the warranty (even all claims) which I have one would be forfeited if this is done... 

It says in the warranty (I haven't got uploaded yet) the following.... 

If the event that the purchaser, by themselves or through another party performs work which causes the removal and/or alteration of the products or materials during the applicable warranty, this craftsmanship warranty shall be VOID AND ALL CLAIMS TO IT SHALL BE FOREFEITED.

Meditate on that, and also meditate on the fact that a full refund has not been approved by Atlanta (in this case) to give a refund by check. But rather, it would be credited (if at all it really would be) through Citibank. 

Then read what the settlement agreement states in respects to Citibank.

And consider how "the removal of products" from the roof seems reasonable, but in light of the warranty (and even the warranty alone made void is also reasonable), But notice that if another performs that work all claims shall be forfeited in that doing?

I'm no lawyer, and I cannot sign what I don't fully understand because its required (in the signing of it it) that you are acknowledging what I cannot, and that is (that I fully acknowledge I understand  all the seeming double speak I believe I might be signing). Which (to me) very much appears like a trap in how its worded. In respect to what's noted in the warranty (and what is required) which seems reasonable (at first) but nixes the claims, even while bringing in the cardholder (as being a kind of non party to this) yet these are the medium (a supposed) full refund would come. So its really just what is specifically written in Home depots own warranty the way it is (and against the customer) for doing something (even reasonable) or in this instance "reasonable repairs" but that is not allowable, which is why I asked about tarping the whole thing (as screws alter the materials) and do the same, but none could say they would even advise.

Like why lose a catch 22 on you?

In this way (and to me personally) this appears as rather scam-ish, and in how the settlement and release is worded, and all which is brought into it.

I suppose I do believe it to be more of a retaliation for me not jumping for joy over this whole experience.

If I am supposed to do that and they prefer me to (at least) wear a shirt that celebrates this experience, I am more then willing to budge on this, I have created a tee shirt they might approve of***

I have other tee shirts I am currently working on to purchase. I could have a tee shirt for every day of the week to show my celebrating self (to the world). 

It can also be free (yet somewhat more truthful) advertising. A work of art, which bears witness to the creativity of their skilled installers who have discerning oversight.

And in case these images dont show up (so you can read whatever it is I am pointing out) I am adding adding *** by them so they could be provided again (in those specific areas) for others to read.

Forgive me because I am not so good at this, and I have no problem with reposting (again)

But I was working on a tee shirt that advertises Rip off report also

 

Now I wouldnt wear that second one, and the Lowes bucket (on the front) is alll faded out. And I am just playing around, but I will admit its a new therapuetic past time is all.

Its Saturday, 2/22/2014 I just wanted those letters up (to be able to refer to them) even as I promised to document all that comes to me, who I called, who I heard from (who I didnt) and how long this BS takes, and although I am still going along for the ride. Still not knowing how it will pan out, and more for you guys then for me because theres enough of you out there making a noise about it that I wouldnt bet on what is right and just to materialize in this. I would be very very surprised, even as I think you would be given the past track records (investigations) and personal testimonies. 

But I am taking on the mind that any losses on my end would only be wins for many more (nationwide) anyway. To give them the heads up, and to beware. Because I feel sorry for anyone who has taken a loan against their home for such a roof install, and this happens (where you are even more screwed) in this same situation (and even over such a small thing). A small thing (like ignore manufacturers recommendations) and then blew up over contract speak and the miscommunications were obviously on their own part. 

Not once was what I requested ever acknowledged (but glossed over). No one will say, Oh, you are right, you did ask for new, and not to keep what we are squirting black sealer stuff on). That which I have shown very plainly to you. Which looks like a two year old took black icing and tried to do something (un-interpretable). Just so you know, that whether you ask for something (and there is a miscommunication on their part on things) this is what is my experience (I share with you).

And also, if it is written down (even very clearly so) it will also be ignored (even to the end) and just insist the only thing open (left to be done of them) for you to keep one of the warranty's (because there are two) is to have your old stuff repaired. While all their so called repairs would even give the manufacturer the right to void any warranty (with you) because of their workmanship. This needs to be seen from various angles, and I cant see how this mess (joined to) my old crap is anything the manufacturer recommends, but on the contrary. Its anything but in like new (condition) as they recommend, and certainly not new (which I asked for) and even noted I did in the third contract.

I never received them (regardless) though.

Might as well "speak into the air", and so I am, I am speaking into internet air space (and that works just fine too).

As of right now, I contacted the Claims person (who also goes by the name Ellen) from BlairandCo. I contacted her yesterday after calling Sedgwicks and confirming they were legit).  I have this need to constantly "confirm things" two or three times over (for surety) and did the same here as well. And I contacted her by phone (first) but she wasnt in so I hung up and emailed the adress on the letter and I have yet to hear back from her. But I will wait.

Just "so yanno"  

And I am really having a hard time figuring out how many items I have waiting to be posted (and whats in them) and I have lost posts while attempting to add them in directly (verses post them elsewhere) and then copy paste into the box.

Still getting the feel of this place, I thought I posted this info, but I believe I could have been mistaken so I added the above in while working on the majority of it this morning 2-22-2014

You cant click on it from here (this is just a copy of the actual video) over at You tube on GAF's channel. Its called, "Flashing installation tutorial"  to watch this video (and the other) for the points raised

only reuse existing STEP flashing if it is in "like new" flashing . GAF then further clarifies, saying at 2:12...

 

Then there's such as these and the same beneath

^My various flashings^



I don't understand how any of my old buckled, rusted, bent, broken and/or cracked (and the others not pictured here) which show holes meet the standards of what the manufacturer recommends. I see no "could be" reused (if its not in "like new" condition). Home depot doesn't advertise incorporating old rusty ones against the manufacturers recommendation. So the HD installers aren't following what either are selling in their doings. Whether their own advertising, either on the website (or as shown in the video) and most importantly if the customer requested it in according to the same (and even for the new).

GAF also goes on to say (8 seconds the same video) ..."The importance of flashing is often minimized and its installation is sometimes ignored especially in poor roofing installation (and the video continues, to tell of how flashings seal and protect joints from water penetration. This is also the very reason why I asked for what the Home depot also advertises in respects to the same (new flashings). Even as GAF (the manufacturer) points out the same. These being critical components in directing water away from these particular vulnerable areas.

One inspection report of my roof reads, 

"The flashing job was of very poor quality, and maybe not even ever finished. Generally, this roofing job exhibits very poor and substandard workmanship, at least at flashings where good workmanship is most critical."

On roof exterior it was observed that original flashings where skylight met the top of the two foot wide transition perimeter were in very poor condition.

I cannot determine the expected life of re-used step flashings that were rusted.

He also says,

If the contract called for new flashings to be installed, this was obviously not done.

Home depot's own website (the link provided above) calls for them, under

GET THE FACTS ON ROOFING INSTALLATION

"Roof replacement should include removal of existing materials, a structural integrity inspection, a rubberized leak barrier, deck underlayment, drip edges and metal flashings."

The inspector we brought out in Sept to inspect the roof points out some other things

along with a reused old drip edge, not even fastened properly



The second page of their inspectors report sates,

"The drip edge and metal flashings appeared to be the original existing metal flashing and not provided as new materials with the asphalt shingle installation.



Showing he acknowledges what we did not appear to have then tosses in whatever is in the contract.

So let me understand the facts of what should come with a home depot roof installation. So where drip edges and metal flashings (and more) are named together. The same roof should come with it but? Our $18,000 over priced leaky roof does not? Other roof installers especially GAF's can pull off so much more for less? Where's the purchasing power to the buyers advantage? Not being passed on, but neither is anything they are putting out there as coming with the roof.

 And typically most people cant walk around on their roof (like we can) because its earth berm (easy to get on) and not a very steep slope.

Doesn't the roof replacement remove the existing materials (a couple of which) are drip edges and metal flashings to the deck (to discard)? But here, only to pull out (of whatever should hit the dump) and put some of them back on again?

Where is that move in either of their ads or the contract?

So what is typically hidden from the eyes of the consumer on this kind of roof installation (in those things) "shingled over" are all the so called roof "come with's". Things like flashings and the rest as named, even the majority of things that are later found to be missing are among the same? I wonder how many there are out there who would find this to be the case and chasing their tails trying to figure out how they got lost when you requested them? Or how many people find some of these more critical component not there (after an inspection) simply because of problems related to them? 

I bet cha a lot of homeowners would be vindicated if they video recorded the whole transaction. For all that money for a roof? Its worth a video recorder purchase just for that. Or just use your tablet.

I know many homeowners (even as I am more certain they know it too) that not many can even walk around on their roofs to check things out. More typically I would say they only know what is going on inside their homes under their home  (leaks and such) even as I had. Which every other roofer could remedy (almost in the same exact way) but these guys just kept squirting stuff on the roof. Finally someone tipped me off to get an inspector.

It would have to be pretty much these areas then. The more "hidden ones" (which is also convenient) where a price jack (and promise can be made) but in the end that's not what you are going to get. That it is/ or was sold to the consumer but those things (which are hard to check for) is that which is suddenly (and far more easily) that which goes missing out of the picture. Almost taboo to speak about and difficult to get written down. Afterwards you scratch your head because it become some obscure thing you cant make heads or tails out of, when the ads (unlike them) were clear.

I would ask, which is it? The one affirms the removal of existing materials (which was done) and goes further into what should come with the roof install. The video however, expands on the very same thing, the removal (and/or discarding of) everything down to the deck (which in my case was also done or not?) but with the exception of my old drip edges and metal flashings they were picked out of the pile or never removed down to the deck?

The video (expounds)  down to the deck, and is followed up from behind on what is installed after what's discarded. 

So when you call the phone number to get an consultation it is as easy as 1-2-3 that's not the hard part. Hanging in there throughout the whole year from the first heaviest rain after the install in Feb forward. My requests for the two soft spots went ignored more then times. I mentioned in an online August 13, 2013 mail at myhomedepotproject(dot)com and the letter to corporate Sept 12, 2013 after the inspector come, once more in another email and in person again when both inspectors were on the roof. When I say that, I want saying this of myself I cant get onto the roof. I was simply relaying what two other contractors who work on roofs said when walking on it (who were also former roofers).

Watch this Home depot video starting at 1:08 (if it posts) or if it does not just run the video title over at You tube which I posted below called, "How to replace your roof with Home depot"

youtube.com/watch?v=ndFkPYXhXHg

 I sure felt I was sold a bill of goods,  I perceive the whole thing (from the advertising, to what I was led to believe by it that I was buying what they were selling me. Then the emails go down when my estimators want to send estimates, followed by the  faxes not receiving on their end what the other got confirmation of. Various other things (like P.O boxes offered me when I requested an address for where to send a certified mail. As to perceiving any sincerity in any offer here (with the entrapments) I don't. I would regard similar doings as equal if not very similar to scamming. I don't see any difference (from beginning to end) in showing otherwise. The definition of the same can be shown.

A scam is a dishonest attempt to trap you into parting with your money.  

They offer "a final" offer where were the others? Wasn't one a bogus one (to refund the roof and the damages) and we were thrilled so we could have a working roof but that was revoked? This "final" offer (for just "store credits") in this situation created by them where you cant get a re roof because you locked yourself into their card and stuck on an install.

I question it worded it like that, why not rather say, we would even be willing to remove your roofing materials (ourselves) down to the decking crediting your account for the former (because we botched the job). And to make this right we would be happy to reinstall the entire roof (with all the new flashings). This time, discarding your old flashings (like we should have with the first) because we went against the manufacturers recommendations. Its an either (repair) or a store credit (for goods) so why wouldn't the replacement be offered if was genuinely going to be refunded?  Why does it come with conditions that releases them from all damages (even as the letter acknowledges the same ) and dump them on us? We didn't create this situation. Damages? whether of past (what we are looking at presently) and future (like if the mold inspection comes back positive)? You want me sign something to stick me with that too? For arguments sake, if I came over tomorrow to your home and messed it all up and then after no good faith on my part sent you a letter like that would you sign it at your own expense?

  And to think, even just to replace the atrium part alone, which is the least expensive area to shingle of the entire roof has come with so much resistance. The offer (as I mentioned there) is wrapped into other things, that are, in my estimation and through my experience (in agreement with some others) meant to prey on others (even further). As if desiring to make more money off of your bad fortune if they could (even if the same has came by them). I'm even curious how the $875 (held up in the dispute) and pushed back by them twice (90 days) will be handled on it.  Which was around the price of the shingling of the atrium (bout $175 over). Now I cant say, I can only read what others testify of online (thanks for the heads up) but it would not be my experience until it happened to me in respects to any predatory lending scheme accusations, but I will let you know as this continues.

I could probably perceive what can be understood to be scam-like advertising. Which seems so crystal clear (even as easy as 1-2-3) which says what the roof should come with) but in the end (just cant be found). What your left with is problems with your old which they squirt goopy stuff all over and call that a repair (and to a flashing). But I sure don't care to spend thousands on any mold remediation, what a drag. Because I cant sell my home without  fully disclosing these roof leaks because some homes have problems other buyers wouldn't be comfortable with. I don't want to be a liar who deceives people into a bad deal bringing them harm or anything like that. And although I am not sold so much on the mold thing (at least not completely) there's a certain majority who are and this could present some problems for us down the road. This is about assuring potential  buyers also. Or more then my own assurance alone. Rightfully so they should be cautious in buying a home, even mine. Because a home that has been leaking on and off for quite awhile could have a similar problem because of this.

There's stuff I don't care too much about for myself, but for another I would the more. 

I don't see how we can sell our home with it like this (presently) or if there is a buyer out there who does not need a certificate that it had been remedied. I don't know, would you buy a home with a potential mold problem (presently) and which has not been tested for it? Because I must offer "full disclosure" to any and all buyers. I need to disclose that one inspector condemned the roof (for a replacement) but the other parties inspector says, "nu huh" pretty much (so will be good enough for them?) all the while yet another points out other possible of issues because of how long this has been going on. So this will probably not be going over too good with any potential buyers. Knowing that this is something homeowners insurance doesn't cover. The buyers (after being informed of so much) would be in the right ask so much of us. Because if we try to hide those errors in such a transaction they could sue us. And for concealing what they have every right to be aware of before such a purchase. Well, full disclosure (even transparency) is rare. You might not get it from others but you can be that to others yourself. 

So, I would like to provide the more for the buyer. Well, you know, to make the home worth "something" to anyone in the market, and by that I mean its former wholeness, or soundness. Not as something which leaves them saying, well, apparently you have had problems, but we cant afford a home with issues. Because they might say, "we are  unwilling to take such a risk on what we are unsure of" (concerning this mold thing). Understandable, really.

We knew we needed a new roof, its something which is also needed to make your home more appealing (in the trouble free sense of things). Needed often under certain lenders. And we had been trying to do so many installations but they would just be counted for naught so many folks over the possibility of mold. Its extremely expensive to test or treat or test and treat.

  So now? No, I don't believe there is any "honest" attempt in any of it, but that is being used as a vehicle to just trap (nothing more).

I will work on getting that up online also. Which also plays into two comments left by Ellen over at BBB (I will address down further) and on next update because its really hard to get everything in here.

  But back to the roof, because the Home depot channel and Home depot website puts it out there that the flashings are being included. See their very "get the facts about roof replacement" (even under "which roof") in general. 

And by the way (besides that I asked) and was told so much by our estimator (which to me) was only offering the same confirmation of this both the Home depot video and their website put forth (and covered concerning) what should come with. But what? It doesn't "come with"?  Somehow? Through my begging that it does? Or because my flashings were somehow judged "sound" (over and against manufacturers recommendations)? Where they still offer you a manufacturer warranty (in one hand) while seemingly screwing up the very same warranty for you?

Neither their video ad nor the website advertised the same in fine print so why should I look for it inside some fine print?

Where was either my old flashings advertised as going back on (either openly) or the same fine print?

Where O' where were roofing nails even mentioned (at all)? 

I didn't think you should have to be a lawyer in order to buy a roof. That a consumer (who is paying for the "so called" name of itself) should need to be looking over your shoulder to see who is ready to snatch your flashings away from you. Unless that's the name you want to leave for others in respects to doing business.

As easy as 1-2-3 (but not for you)

I asked about the same flashings, and was told they come with it. The website, video, estimator, and then even when pulling a John Stossel (at a few HD stores) when connected to their installation department. They too were in agreement with what I even opted for, and with what I believed I was being sold. And to me, it was very forthright (in all those sources above I checked with).

Though I was curious, if Home depot's employees (who believed so much) and needed a roof (and had it installed) would be surprised that it wasn't what they were telling everyone, even myself.

Its good for others to see this as this goes forwards. I hope I am not coming off as a person just making a quick rant (and stomping off) but also helping you make a better decision. To see even as I saw, and to ask yourself if you would have understood it the same way (and fallen prey to what I believe to be more a scam) and be in my position right now, over something so small and easily remedied. So don't be shocked when it is not. And I want to show you how I was sold on and how it come to this, and how you might not have to, because the simple 1-2-3 this is not (for you). The prices are not even the best. What would others do when they are locked into their HD card (with that no interest for a year) but defaults into going beyond the time because of its own installers. You would be paying for a roof that doesn't work with not so many ways out of now (all things considered). Just giving you a heads up (from my end) as to how it might go for you (even if you pay in full through the HD card also). What it will effect, how you will be handled, from beginning to end (and its all done with a smile) and each email has some kind of I love you slogan at the bottom of it. I get it. I would encourage people to look closer at this before obligating yourself here. Because by the time most (who might have opted for) these critical components find out (times up) and even if not, in the time left allotted its all just the run around, even them waiting wherever they can for you to break the warranty. 

Even though they went against the manufacturers recommendations (and yours) to re install what neither the manufacturer (nor you) would have ever permitted. So its often another roofer (or in my case) glass repairers/ former roofers along with an inspector who begins asking you questions. Like, if you knew that they did not install any new flashings on your roof. And you show folks the video, the website ads, tell them bout the estimator and the stores which all say the same. And that even when so much was asked for it (again and again) it never seemed to be written and assured pretty much that is as included in your roof installation as the roofing nails would be.  Even they perceive the same as false advertising. Even when calling the HD stores I would correct them. I would ask after being connected to installations, just that one question. They themselves confirm so much to the customer. I told them they cant be correct because I didn't receive those. And I did that not because I believe they were mistaken but to point out the fact that they are saying what I am (and I am wrong) or so called. But if all these sources are wrong and in one big lie they are also all selling that lie (to others), so how is this not fraudulent advertising? When what they say isn't what they do, or even according to the manufacturers recommendations.

I have always wonder who the heck makes those strange forms that must be filled out. I wonder no more. Probably a snake in the back who is skilled at hiding things somewhere in them which hasn't a lick of rhyme or reason to it. Other then what appears obvious, to being deliberately deceiving. This even after there is no further question because you felt confident they had made things so clear,  plain and forthright. My job was not a job done right the first time (as they advertise). The whole thing gave me a migraine not any "real" peace of mind. The job inspector seemed to sleeping, or maybe this

 Advertising it as one way (concerning these components) not installing them and makes "as easy as 1-2-3" as needing a lawyer to figure out what you cant get after trying to see where you are wrong even a year later on this. Advertising them but having already removed them off in some kind of fine print? For what purpose is something like that doing?  It just seems like such a deceptive way to prey on people, even hard working paying customers on something like the very roof over their family's head. A large majority of folks cant budget something like this out on a whim without some kind of serious thought as to what they can juggle financially. Which is right up there with car payments, and if it was still a loan for more years most likely could not get an equal loan to redo it until the first is paid for. Then do it again because these people.

This is just some of what I wanted to show others (just so they might actually win) even though I might not, this has become my past time showing folks these things (and I will be ordering shirts that says, "ask me about my roof") as well. And just because I honestly cant believe this is done to people. I would have wanted warning as I was searching for so much but more likely on sites that delete them maybe. Now, I would get much more satisfaction helping others win. Just think of it like a "sacrifice of the one in order to save the many" type deal. Just want to warn folks, as I would someone else would have me. And folks here are doing just that. I just hadn't tuned in soon enough. 

A roof might have cost you somewhere around $18,000 (like ours) more or less. Whatever the price doesn't matter even in being scammed, it happens at any level of purchase. We tend to overlook the penny stuff (because its so small a loss) its the bigger stuff we get more ticked over and typically because someone wanted to cut corners at you expense. Their roofs typically took 2 hours to install, was it really that necessary (in time and components) to cut a corner at all? After it took many hours of my husbands laboring throughout many years to afford us what they could end (more or less) in that time frame?

 So, if we paid for "the name" (even as was told me) and we pretty much get what we pay for what if anything is in that name?   Although what we paid for (and currently still going through) is nothing in comparison to the losses which could happen to others, so I can not say nothing at all. And after something like this happens to you (and many know the feeling) talking about it is therapeutic. And it does  make me feel better to know I can help others in sharing so much. Because how many come here wondering if a transaction like ours (is worth the risk for them). We are real people who have made tons of smaller purchases with Home depot over the course of our lives, I didn't start to look at this till many months later under certain keywords searching out others who find themselves with bad installations causing all kinds of home damage and what can come of these just the same. Its good to see (in pictures) and hear others (in real time) about their situations. They themselves being just as cautious as me (if not more so) concerning having to deal with an unsavory situation. Because I felt the same way, I had joined Angie's list (just months before doing this) trembling as to who to go with (or who to trust). I just figured I hadn't had any problems with Home depot before on smaller things. But I never tried to take something back or express dissatisfaction on something, especially not something this legitimate (and worth griping about).

It was only afterwards when I searched and read of others encounters on these roof installs I knew in my gut they are telling the truth in certain things (and without question) because I found it true for myself. Someone might say, well that is probably true of your store (or in your state), the store was never the problem, they were horrified at this experience and gave me the number of Atlanta GA (thinking they would be help). Your help is outsourced basically to where its more like the epicenter for a team of escalators who seem to be paid to manage you (and the situation timely) closing a certain number of cases a week  eyeballing the time. And reporting in once a week "to reach out and touch you" on how things are going (on a monitored phone call). Checking in but I'm not sure yet on what, because the conversation feels very leading. And we see the same managing of damage control over at BBB (and I just watched that BBB video) I know that's right on. 

There are times its put out there as if they are being reasonable (for example mention their offer) a reasonable person would not reject, because they failed to mention all the details which leaves you holding all the damages. So when someone else might say, well, that sounds like a decent offer (in a sound bite) they are expressing exactly what HD would I sign (its a trap too) and thats in the details) none of which were even shared over at BBB (it was concealed). So I have become the impossible one (being jerked around) and this has been my experience so far. And if you are going through the same with something similar you are not alone.

Now everyone loves a deal (when they are actually getting one) Cost wise it was not a deal, I was paying thousands more for what I thought would be done right (with all those inclusions) in my mind. I was told by them (afterwards) when these troubles started and  when I asked, "what the heck did I paid for"? Ted responded, you are paying "the name". That's it?  What name? A name supposedly worth "something" (to me) the customer? In some way?  A current name? Or a ghost of the past kind of name scootin' around on the fume's of former days long past and has no further relevance to me in my current situation? What do I get with that name? Where is my goods thereby the same? or does the bill of goods pretty much play in right around here?

Anyway I will report on how long after getting the estimates this takes and have chosen a general contractor, I believe has been right all along to do the work, but he cannot touch the roof to begin until the claims are approved otherwise its a warranty violation, your hands are tied, and on this roof in particular that would not be a good move one after that is installed.

P.S never rate roof services till after a few rains, or ask, "Can I get back to you on that"? And just because anyone can clean a lawn (which you can see) doesn't mean they are equally as skilled to install a decent roof.

Back to the flashings

Because the inspector continues,

"I could not determine the rated life of shingle installed (25 year, 30 year, etc.), but if premium shingles were installed then it is possible that the re-used flashings may fail before the shingle life runs out."

That could be very iffy on (at least now) and cant say with the whole GAF timberline shingle class action lawsuit thing, but that is a whole other story.

The inspector continues

"Flashings in any roof are, by necessity, are typically mostly concealed. The visible parts of the flashings around the skylight were in poor condition and were obviously not installed correctly."

 "There is no way to know what the flashings are like in areas that are covered or concealed. Anyone who would perform work of this quality in visible areas can not be trusted to have performed satisfactory work where concealed ."

Then read (in my update) the conditions of mine. Where many of their previous repairs have done nothing (at all) to actually remedy the situation. There is no charge (to us) per contract, for repairing any defect (again and again and again) due to faulty workmanship, its the actual word replacement that is the issue. To repair something is not to replace it. 

Which is why its got goopy squirty stuff all over it.

Its in the wording, they use it between one another

For example, their inspector speak to the current condition of the flashing and shingle installation...Then agreeing by saying,  "the observed condition is defective"

Even though the first job was for a roof replacement, even as they advertise,

 "We'll add a new drip edge and new metal flashings for extra protection..."(see the below video at 1:20 forward)

I added in those floating yellow text inserts when copying the video and its title over at you tube, just a small spoof on "don't believe every thing you hear" on this video (as shown in the spoof conversation)

On their own website under the words "Get the facts on roof installation" far right (under "which roof")

Herehomedepot.com/c/SV_HS_Roofing 

Here's another video on REAL peace of mind

I just wasn't "feeling" the real stuff I think I got the "fake" stuff

But here we go, if we time the purchase of this part of the roof (because we bought them in parts, or 4 parts) this month (Feb 2014) is exactly one year to the month of its installation right? Turn the contract over, and look at any offers if you lasted this long (or one year going back and forth with corporate).  Its easy for me to see that the roof wasn't ever really put on to last anymore then a handful of years but this mess up just come in earlier then expected (like the first rain fall after it was installed). So we can literally see how the installers will make a good show and come over and squirt stuff on it" (via the pic) in the previous post which is really like sticking corks in the problem that didn't exist until they arrived, not even in the old roof. Its set up just like that. Just see the "limited warranty" part of the contract (on the back part). It REPAIRS defects in the workmanship which what? Does not REPLACE what a roof should have? Thus the letter (or how they word things) if your roof is not done correctly from day one. They come over and squirt stuff on it, (ie in last update the picture spoof on easy roof leak repairs) which mean their install (even workmanship) is defective and the biggest favor you could do your home is find new installers and warn folks of these. Look at what I have done up there and tell me any of you would be okay with it and that you would love to have who did this to my home (do yours). There's not a contractor who has not come in here to estimate it who hasn't felt extremely bad for this situation, especially how easy and affordable the situation would have been earlier on. When they behold how HD's installers attempted to fix it they laugh at "whatever the heck that is". They have apparently because a laughing stock to those in its own industry. 

I give a big kudo's to Home depot's tarps, because they are killer "over my new roof" (sounds weird) but I gave the tarps 5 stars (because they actually work)

Especially if you keep "moving them around"