American Green Roofing

We are a locally-owned family business and have worked hard to have a perfect reputation, including stellar ratings from all previous customers publicly available online. This does not happen by accident. [redacted] and Mrs. [redacted] have launched a campaign to try to impugn the...

reputation of our company by making demonstrably false statements. We are responding to each claim and providing documents that show the claims are false.
The root of his anger is simply a small misunderstanding on his part that he and his wife then fixated on for weeks until we revealed that they had fastened a post-it note over the part of the contract they were confused about. In other words, we performed our part of the contract dutifully, faithfully, on time, and conducted ourselves professionally and with respect at all times.
[redacted] met with our AGR Rep who measured the roof and, after applying the $1000 radio ad discount, came up with a price of $8296.35 and put it in writing on the contract. As the AGR Rep was getting in his car, [redacted] yelled to him that he had found a competing estimate and wanted to see if we could match the price of $7378.
The Best Price Guarantee written on our contract states: "AGR will match any submitted copy of a pre-existing, accurately measured estimate from a local, licensed, accredited contractor for the same materials and areas covered."
After reviewing the competing estimate, from [redacted], it was not at all for comparable materials and services. The shingles specified were a lower grade shingle known as "Oakridge", whereas AGR quoted for the higher grade, thicker and more expensive "Duration". Also, we specified the more expensive synthetic underlayment instead of old-fashioned tar paper, which was stated on the other estimate. These were installed.
Significantly, the roof had 6 extremely large and heavy solar panels installed which must be removed and reconnected in order to replace the roof shingles. There is no way to leave them in place and shingle under them. The other estimate does not include removal or reconnection of solar panels, which would normally cost around $2000. Comparing our estimate, which is thorough and professional, to the handwritten price of an estimate which is not tenable in reality for the physical manifestation of the job, is simply comparing apples to oranges.
[redacted] said he wanted us to remove and haul to a landfill all 6 heavy solar panels, which requires a rope system to remove from the roof, as well as landfill fees, which AGR incurred.
Though the estimates were not for the same materials and services, and therefore could not be matched according to our policy, the AGR rep offered to do the job, with solar panel removal and landfill haul off, for $7000 + permit fees, which is typed very clearly next to the price. After signing the contract, [redacted] placed a small post-it note over the sentence where it says "+permit fees". The permit fee was NEVER "supposed to be included in the final price", as [redacted] has said. If we were to match the Behrend's estimate item for item, we would need to add $2000 for the solar panels.
[redacted] repeatedly states that the AGR rep "promised" things that the owner would not honor. The rep never promised that the permit fee would be included. [redacted] just simply wanted and expected the permit fee to be included, perhaps because the Behrend's estimate did include the permit fee, but the permit fee was never explicitly discussed verbally at any point between the AGR rep, owner and the [redacted]. If they expected it to be included, they should have made that clear at the time of signing, so that the AGR rep could clearly cross out and initial the bold text adjacent to the price which clearly states "+ permit fees". No implication, promise or understanding was communicated that permit fees would be included.
[redacted] claims that he paid $238 more than the quote from Behrend's, which is false, as documented in the attached files. [redacted] price is $7378, and our price is $7000 + permit fee of $237.75, which means that in reality, even after additional permit fees, [redacted] paid $140.25 less than the estimate he submitted.
When [redacted] confronted us with the original contract and pointed to the price of $7000 and asked us in a belligerent angry tone, "where does it say we pay permit fees!?!", the AGR owner noticed that she had adhered a post-it note next to the price which covered the printed phrase "+ permit fees".
After the AGR owner removed this post-it note, [redacted] demeanor immediately changed, and she said "Oh, I agree, I'll go get your check." It is also significant that [redacted] was not present at this time, nor during ANY of the interactions where he accuses the owner of "sarcasm" and implying that he was somehow intimidating a woman "who was home alone". This is a transparently unfair and slanderous attempt to mischaracterize AGR, its employees and owner out of the emotional frustration and anger of his own misunderstanding and mistakes, which created inaccurate expectations in him and his wife. When confronted with the reality, he became belligerent and has been attacking our company with false accusations on as many websites as possible. We have independently confirmed with Yelp that he created a Yelp account solely for the purpose of a complaint against us and has not used it before or since.
Because the claims he has made are so out of line, and knowingly false, and because we can substantiate this with ample documentation, we are also suing the [redacted] in court for defamation and business losses resulting from the specious and aggressive public claims they have made. We will inform the Revdex.com as to the results of this court case in due time.
The AGR owner made several phone calls well in advance of every on-site visit to attempt to ensure [redacted] was present. None of his accusations are true or accurate, since he was not present. [redacted] said she was completely satisfied and offered the check on the spot after the city inspector informed her in person verbally that the roof had passed inspection. After final payment, Mr. or [redacted] at no point expressed any dissatisfaction or complaints to AGR. AGR only found out about [redacted]'s campaign against us from other potential clients who found his claims on various websites. They never gave AGR an opportunity to address any concerns or leave them happy customers by actually stating any requests. The clear impression given from [redacted] demeanor was that everything was resolved amicably, and this was echoed by a phone call between [redacted] and the AGR owner on the day of payment and inspection by [redacted] stating on speakerphone for his wife to "Go ahead and pay them."
The job was performed expeditiously. The inspector himself, along with the owner of AGR, personally rang the doorbell and the inspector verbally informed [redacted] that the roof had passed inspection and gave her instructions how to attain a printed copy of the results from the local building department. Neither Mr. or [redacted] requested from AGR a copy of the final city inspection, which resides in the records of the building department, and is accessible anytime via the exact procedure explicitly described directly to [redacted] in the presence of the AGR owner.
The [redacted] have been unreasonable and unfair by making complaints publicly that are false, and then accusing AGR of failing to provide specific things they never in fact requested. The failure to provide an invoice of some sort is unfair for this reason, simply because we accepted final payment and typically document this on the contract itself along with a signature.
The claim of AGR "tacking on another $238 WHEN they came to collect" is a purposeful mischaracterization because the owner personally emailed [redacted] a copy of the permit receipt weeks in advance of requesting payment. It was not done as a surprise on the day of collection. They were informed well in advance.
[redacted] claims that "none of the workers spoke English" and that he was "unable to ask questions" on the day of the job. This is false because the AGR owner, an English speaker, was present on the day of installation. Moreover, [redacted] was not present during most of the day of the roof installation (which took 1 day). Moreover, [redacted] and the AGR owner had spoken on the phone many times before, so it had been clearly established that the phone was a readily available option for any concerns. Nor had the AGR owner ever failed to answer or return a phone call at any point. [redacted] simply made the conscious choice not to call the AGR owner or Rep, presumably so that he would have a complaint to make later. We would ask [redacted] to answer why he did not reach out with any of these concerns directly to AGR, and instead launch a public defamation campaign.
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Data Base Migration