May 12, 2020:
AM Roofing has responded to my May 8 derogatory review of their service. I am not going to dignify that response by addressing each appalling untruth and outright fabrication contained therein. I stand by my review, and the individual reader will have to evaluate it for themselves. I am done with this fiasco.
May 8, 2020:
In late October of 2019, AM Roofing of Collingwood applied an EPDM membrane to the leaking roof of my sunroom, at a cost of $3000.00. In mid November it rained, and the roof was still leaking. I called the company immediately and their production supervisor came to look at it. This young man commented, although I’m sure he regrets his words now, that he didn’t understand why the workman had even installed the EPDM given that the roof itself was in such poor structural condition. This assessment of the overall condition of the roof was subsequently corroborated by another roofing company as well as by an independent professional engineer, and it was determined by both that the only possible solution was total replacement. So the question becomes: Given the very poor condition of the roof, should the AM salesman and subsequently the repairman not have recognized that the EPDM membrane would be futile? And should they not then have declined the job or suggested an alternate solution rather than taking my $3000 for a job that was doomed to fail?
Once the continuing leak was identified in November, the company did offer to install, at no additional charge, wood pillars to support the roof to keep it from collapsing, but that really did not seem viable to me, and certainly was not esthetically appealing. I queried the possibility of constructing an extension from the shingled main roof of the house, and the production supervisor said there would be an additional cost but that he would price it for me and get back to me, which he did not. In late March I called him and advised that I didn’t want to take any further steps with them, and that I wanted a refund. The supervisor said he would take the matter up with higher management and after multiple attempts on my part to follow up, I finally connected with the general manager in early May. He came to look at the roof and declined to reimburse on the basis that the roof had structural faults, which is unquestionably true, and which simply underscores my claim that they should have recognized this and not attempted the repair. He further pointed out, to my amazement, that the roof now only leaks when there is snow and ice present. That is a true statement, but hardly a persuasive one in defense of a failed roof repair.
It should also be noted that the initial contract was for $5000 and included the removal of the existing roofing material and sheeting and replacing it with new ½” plywood. By sheer luck I was home when the workman arrived. He had no plywood with him and said there was no plywood involved in the job, either to be removed or to be installed. I immediately called AM Roofing who offered no explanation for this huge discrepancy and reduced the price to $3000. But I have to wonder…. If I had not happened to be there when the workman arrived, would that “error” have been caught, or would I now be out $5000 rather than $3000?
I am a senior on a limited income and I do not have the resources to pursue this matter legally, so it seems I will have to absorb the $3000 loss. But hopefully someone else will read this and spare themselves the expense and aggravation I have experienced through AM Roofing. I say again….. buyer beware.