Ruca Consulting & Construction

I stand by what I originally statedThis client has made it his life mission to try and destroy my companyI have had nonstop harassment/threats via email, text, and callsI have refunded monies for work not being done, twice nowWe have tried to finish the job on numerous occasions, however the client plays games by hiding the material when we are scheduled to go outI ultimately had to give him a day window for work to be completed to allow him to come to his senses and stop hiding his materialSadly, he chose not to cooperateAt this point, I believe he enjoys the extra drama in his lifeThe client states we followed him to the bankYes this is true, but it was upon his requestI personally picked up the first check from his wife at his houseHe seems to be confused.I don't know why he brings up a case from TexasThat does not apply here in ColoradoHe also continues to repeat that I act as a public adjusterActing as a public adjuster would be speaking insurance policyI do not speak policyI only communicate with the insurance company on scope of loss and code items for certain jurisdictions as I am liable to uphold local building codes as a licensed general contractorThis client only continues to regurgitate what his uncle (public adjuster) saysHe also seems to think I am a rooferI am a general contractorNo roofer or general contractor has their own in-house crewsWe all use local, trusted subcontractors.I warn any contractor to stay away from this client as he is an opportunistHe will find anything and everything to complain about and try to make your life miserable

Complaint: I am rejecting this response because:I am writing to inform you that I completely reject the business's response to complaint #I am not going to address the business owner's blatant lies, misrepresentation of events, nor the irrelevant and emotional anecdotes in his response Instead, I will outline and provide indisputable evidence that should warrant the loss of Ruca's accreditation with the Revdex.comFirstly, the Revdex.com requires that contractors be in full compliance with Senate Bill Here is a link to your own webpage, which clearly states, "In our growing effort to support the Denver/Boulder community, your Revdex.com is the first to take action on Senate Bill (SB-38) signed by Governor Hickenlooper in June by requiring SB-compliance as one of our Standards for Accreditation." If it's true that compliance with SB-is a requirement for accreditation with the Revdex.com, then all you need to do is look at the attached contract to see that Ruca's is noncompliant in lieu of the fact that ALL of the following is absent from their contract: Does not list the cost for the materials Does not have a space for the date or service, and no approximate date is provided Does not provide access to the contractor's insurer contact information *Does not contain, on the first page, verbatim, and in bold-face type, a copy of the following statement: "A contractor shall hold in trust any payment from the property owner until the contractor has delivered roofing materials to the jobsite or has performed a majority of the roofing work on the propertyThis statement must be on the first page." *In their response to this complaint, Ruca admitted to collecting ALL of the insurance money prior to delivering materials or doing any work whatsoever It is a standard practice of Ruca's to follow customers to the bank to collect money right after a contract is signed*Does not contain the following statement verbatim: "...if the property owner plans to pay for the roofing services through an insurance claim, the contractor cannot pay, waive or rebate the homeowner’s insurance deductible in part or in whole." *Ruca verbally offers to waive insurance deductibles in the form of referral/advertising rebates While I am sure they will deny it, they told me directly that they would waive my deductible if I posted a sign in my yard and/or referred them to friends In fact, they told me that one of my neighbors has been "making a lot of money" though this "program"Furthermore, check out Ruca's website, and you'll see that it says, "Specializing in Insurance Claims" Ruca stated many times that they are experts at driving up insurance claims Its easy to understand their motivation for this when you see that their contract price states, "INSURANCE PROCEEDS" More importantly, roofers are not supposed to be practicing public adjusting Here is a link to a case in Texas that is now going to the Supreme Court for this exact reason and it's practically parallel to our experience with Rucahttp://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2017/09/articles/consumer-protec...⇄ Lastly, it is important to note that Ruca failed the inspection on the building permit they filed with the city of EdgewaterRuca has been notifiedIn summary, I hired Ruca to repair our roof and skylights at a fair priceSimple as thatI am disappointed because they didn't do what I hired them to do In fact, they not only wasted a lot of our time and money, but the work did they actually did do caused significant damage to our house, of which, Ruca has refused to repairPlease respond to me at your earliest As I stated before, I believe that the evidence I've outlined in this email should warrant the loss of Ruca's accreditation with the Revdex.comThank you, [redacted] Sincerely, [redacted]

Everything was smooth and completely fine until this client realized he could not personally, financially gain from an insurance claimWe were very upfront, transparent and open with this client as we are with all of our clients, which goes to show why 100% of our business is referrals & word
of mouthThis client is just one of those people that is never happy no matter what is done.The client is correct as our contract does state $13,for work being done (roof, skylights, gutters)However, he fails to mention that our contract also states "pending supplements, overhead and profit (additional 20%) and permit"We verbally expressed to him that this will bring the claim up and over his ACV check of $17,We finished the roof however did not completely shingles around the skylights as they soon would be replaced and we wanted to avoid tearing out new roofingThat being said, we completely sealed around the skylights making sure the decking would not be exposed to weatherDespite us informing the homeowner that skylight companies are very backed up during a catastrophe, he still grew very impatientI completely understand thisThe homeowner contacted us for a refund of the difference because the supplements were still pending with the insurance companyHe stated he needed the $4,to pay off a credit cardI have record showing he demanded this multiple times from my salesmen and meUsually, I would have no problem refunding that amount given subcontractors are backed up and the insurance has not approved supplementsHowever, requesting a refund in order to pay off a credit card raises a huge red flag in my mindWhat happens when I need to collect those funds once work is all complete? I have been been taken advantage of in the past one too many times to do something so silly.We told the homeowner we would put pressure on the insurance company to approve supplements so we have a final number, and if it is lower than the $17,we would refund the differenceHe was not happy with this and demanded the refund immediatelyI again responded the sameThe next day he called me on a conference call with his unlce-in-law whom is a public adjusterHe started questioning my expertise and credibility right off the batHe started becoming very aggressive, grilling me with many questions, to which I had flawless responsesHe finally demanded the $4,back for the RCV amount of the detached metal garageI responded that I legally cannot refund the RCV as this is considered insurance fraudA homeowner can only hold onto the ACV amount of a claim, if they do not claim that portion during a new stormThe uncle completely lost his temper, cursing and threatening my license (which he has absolutely zero authority over)I told him I will not be spoken to unprofessionally and disrespectfully and hung up the phoneI looked up his uncles company and he has ZERO reviewsI also asked around to my many connections in the industry and no one has heard of himI suggest he stops crossing the line with his public adjusting license.The insurance finally did approve all supplements which brought the ROOFING ONLY portion up to $13,We backed out of the skylights and gutters as I will not continue to work with someone like thisHad we completed all work we were originally contracted for, the price would've been well over $17,The homeowner then demanded all $17,be refundedClearly, I responded no and said we would refund the $4,difference and go our separate waysHe threatened a Revdex.com complaint, contacting *** Secretary of State, harassed my salesmen and me on multiple occasions and basically regurgitated anything his uncle told him to sayHe eventually agreed to accept the $4,and go our separate waysWe met at the house and he verbally agreed to let us come out and complete the roofing portion around the skylightsHe also thanked us for coming out despite our differencesI dropped off material two days later and scheduled a couple workers to go out and finish the jobUnfortunately, it started raining around 2PM and my crew did not make it out to finish the jobThe client again started asking silly, belittling questions and continued to harass me for an hour VIA textI eventually told him to stop texting meI then scheduled the crew to go out today (Monday, August 14th, 2017) to pop in and finish installing the shinglesMy crew, being very busy popped in during a small break they had between jobs, however the material was no longer in the drivewayI contacted the homeowner and he never confirmed nor denied whether he moved it but continued with pointless questioningI will not play this clients games anymoreHe states he wants this to be over as we all have lost a lot of time but then continues to play silly games with usI cannot keep interrupting my day for him.As of right now, the clients roof is not finished because he has hidden the material elsewhereI will not warranty this work until I can finish this job

I have an open claim with *** related to a hailstorm that hit in early May The claim is in process still but I was granted a check for ~$17,for repairs The large majority of the check, about $13K was for the main roof, skylights, and gutters with about 4,being allocated to a detached garage and other repairs I hired Ruca to replace my roof, my skylights and my gutters I have a contract with them to do this work for about $13,100, not including 20% overhead and profit To date, they have not completed the work in its entirety, just the shingles
Ruca was very heavy handed about collecting the $13,in advance to start the project I hadn't yet deposited the check from *** because I had just taken it to ** *** (my Mortgage holder) as ** *** needed to endorse it to my wife and I before we can deposit it I regrettably gave the check to Ruca as a form of collateral to get started with the work I didn't expect that they would write their own name u

I stand by what I originally stated. This client has made it his life mission to try and destroy my company. I have had nonstop harassment/threats via email, text, and calls. I have refunded monies for work not being done, twice now. We have tried to finish the job on numerous occasions, however the client plays games by hiding the material when we are scheduled to go out. I ultimately had to give him a 3 day window for work to be completed to allow him to come to his senses and stop hiding his material. Sadly, he chose not to cooperate. At this point, I believe he enjoys the extra drama in his life. The client states we followed him to the bank. Yes this is true, but it was upon his request. I personally picked up the first check from his wife at his house. He seems to be confused.I don't know why he brings up a case from Texas. That does not apply here in Colorado. He also continues to repeat that I act as a public adjuster. Acting as a public adjuster would be speaking insurance policy. I do not speak policy. I only communicate with the insurance company on scope of loss and code items for certain jurisdictions as I am liable to uphold local building codes as a licensed general contractor. This client only continues to regurgitate what his uncle (public adjuster) says. He also seems to think I am a roofer. I am a general contractor. No roofer or general contractor has their own in-house crews. We all use local, trusted subcontractors.I warn any contractor to stay away from this client as he is an opportunist. He will find anything and everything to complain about and try to make your life miserable.

Complaint: 12306461
I am rejecting this response because:I am writing to inform you that I completely reject the business's response to complaint #12306461. I am not going to address the business owner's blatant lies, misrepresentation of events, nor the irrelevant and emotional anecdotes in his response.  Instead, I will outline and provide indisputable evidence that should warrant the loss of Ruca's accreditation with the Revdex.com. Firstly, the Revdex.com requires that contractors be in full compliance with Senate Bill 38.  Here is a link to your own webpage, which clearly states, "In our growing effort to support the Denver/Boulder community, your Revdex.com is the first to take action on  Senate Bill 38 (SB-38) signed by Governor Hickenlooper in June 2012 by requiring SB-38 compliance as one of our Standards for Accreditation." If it's true that compliance with SB-38 is a requirement for accreditation with the Revdex.com, then all you need to do is look at the attached contract to see that Ruca's is noncompliant in lieu of the fact that ALL of the following is absent from their contract: Does not list the cost for the materials Does not have a space for the date or service, and no approximate date is provided Does not provide access to the contractor's insurer contact information *Does not contain, on the first page, verbatim, and in bold-face type, a copy of the following statement: "A contractor shall hold in trust any payment from the property owner until the contractor has delivered roofing materials to the jobsite or has performed a majority of the roofing work on the property. This statement must be on the first page." *In their response to this complaint, Ruca admitted to collecting ALL of the insurance money prior to delivering materials or doing any work whatsoever.  It is a standard practice of Ruca's to follow customers to the bank to collect money right after a contract is signed... *Does not contain the following statement verbatim: "...if the property owner plans to pay for the roofing services through an insurance claim, the contractor cannot pay, waive or rebate the homeowner’s insurance deductible in part or in whole." *Ruca verbally offers to waive insurance deductibles in the form of referral/advertising rebates.  While I am sure they will deny it, they told me directly that they would waive my deductible if I posted a sign in my yard and/or referred them to friends.  In fact, they told me that one of my neighbors has been "making a lot of money" though this "program"... Furthermore, check out Ruca's website, and you'll see that it says, "Specializing in Insurance Claims".  Ruca stated many times that they are experts at driving up insurance claims.  Its easy to understand their motivation for this when you see that their contract price states, "INSURANCE PROCEEDS".  More importantly, roofers are not supposed to be practicing public adjusting.  Here is a link to a case in Texas that is now going to the Supreme Court for this exact reason and it's practically parallel to our experience with Ruca. http://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2017/09/articles/consumer-pro...⇄ it is important to note that Ruca failed the inspection on the building permit they filed with the city of Edgewater. Ruca has been notified. In summary, I hired Ruca to repair our roof and skylights at a fair price. Simple as that. I am disappointed because they didn't do what I hired them to do.  In fact, they not only wasted a lot of our time and money, but the work did they actually did do caused significant damage to our house, of which, Ruca has refused to repair. Please respond to me at your earliest.  As I stated before, I believe that the evidence I've outlined in this email should warrant the loss of Ruca's accreditation with the Revdex.com. Thank you,[redacted]
Sincerely,
[redacted]