“Make sure you are documenting everything while on a job site. Take photos of the good and the bad. That way you are able to defend your work if things go south!”
Below is a response to a Google Review we received the day after we appeared in Court and the Judge ruled in favor of MGC. Evidence was presented that the damage to the property was caused by another contractor, 1 year and 5 months after we completed our installations. The Court agreed.
Damage found to Step Flashing
This is mechanical damage. It is impossible for one to bend sheet metal, by hand, and have these crimps. Not too mention the paint scratched off the Step Flashing. Clear evidence that a Saw was used and the depth was set incorrectly.
Customers Google Review: “Use another roofer instead. This company did not install my roof up to code and when confronted with the issue only offered patchwork. They have been unresponsive since I challenged them on the code violation that was confirmed by Bryan Manning, other roofers, and my insurance company. Bryan admitted in a email they could only install flashing based on the limitations of the previous install and they can’t push flashing up when the siding has nails. They would only repair the way it should have originally been installed if I hired another company to completely removed siding and let them repair and then have to reattach siding. That is not acceptable and Bryan stopped responding when I did not want this ridiculous option. Based on legal advice, I had to get another company to fix their faulty work and had to pursue legal action.”
MGC Response was edited as Google only allows for 4,000 characters. Below is our unedited response:
(Customer’s Name), You hired another contractor to cut the side walls at your property and YOUR contractor cut (damaged) the step flashing that we installed. You contracted YOUR contractor a year and a half after we installed the new roof. There were no leaks before YOUR contractor put a skill saw to the siding and damaged (cut) the step flashings (sheet metal bent by had to 90 degrees and inserted behind the siding). You then filed a Civil Suit against MGC. On Thursday, 4/5/2023, we met in court and the Judge was presented evidence of the roof installation; YOUR siding contractors work and the damage he caused; our recommended Scope of Repair; the Contract to do those repairs for free; and the outrageous invoice from the contractor you chose to do the repairs. The Court agreed that YOUR Contractor, who cut the sidewalls and damaged the step flashings, was at fault. The Court also agreed that you should have used Manning Roofing to do the repairs. The Judge was also shocked at the amount you were billed for the repair. I believe his exact words were “did they replace the entire roof?”
The Judge ruled in favor of Manning General Contractors, the defendant: (2316-CV01525 – DEBORAH ELDRIDGE V MANNING GENERAL CONTRACTORS LLC (E-CASE))
Seeing that you were given “legal advice” to pursue action against Manning Roofing, I ask nicely for you to please inform that Attorney of what you have been doing and ask them what the consequences could be for your actions. Please have them read you review and our response/timeline below so they understand “our sides” facts. We do not want to take action against you for slander; however, you are walking a very fine line as you have targeted our company on every social media and review platform in a negative way. You also filed multiple complaints with the Attorney General, the BBB, and filed a Civil Suit. The Attorney General, BBB, and the Court ruled in favor of Manning Roofing/Manning General Contractors. We ask nicely that you stop. Maybe seek advice from your Attorney about removing your reviews and comments.
For those still reading this review, we’d like to give a little history to this review. Our client filed an insurance claim and we replaced the roof and gutters at her property. A lot of additional work was required and (Customer’s Name) requested that we protect all of her property and bushes with plywood. Our crew did a phenomenal job, as usual, and when all work was completed, (Customer’s Name) was a happy camper! The roof installation was completed 5/27/2020. The Gutter installation was completed on 6/2/2020. (Customer’s Name) released her final payment to Manning Roofing on 11/17/2020. Please note that no late fees were billed or received.
On 10/29/2021, we received our first notification of a roof leak. That is 1 Year and 5 Months after the roof installation. Obviously we were a little concerned about this and our Project Manager coordinated with (Customer’s Name) and visited the property to inspect the area of concern. He conducted a water test on the back slope and in the valley above the area that had the water stain on the interior. No water penetrated our roof and there was no visible sign of a defect. He did notice that some painting and caulking had taken place along the siding and pointed out to (Customer’s Name) that some of the siding boards had been pulled back and were loose. *We are not sure if (Customer’s Name) contacted the contractor that did the painting (the same siding contractor) came back at that point to do any more repairs. We asked (Customer’s Name) to watch this area and notify us as soon as she sees another damp spot. That way we can determine, based on the exact weather conditions and wind direction, what could be causing the leak. We were called back out at a later date and our Project Supervisor conducted another water test with our Project Manager. We had the same result as no water was penetrating the roof. This is when we scheduled to have Bryan Manning and our Lead Installer visit the property. Based on the photos and information provided by the Project Manager and the Project Supervisor, they met with (Customer’s Name) and chatted for a few minutes. During that conversation Bryan discovered that she had hired another contractor to cut the sidewalls to increase the gap between the roof surface and the LP Smartside Siding. Generally when one does this, the crew will set a Skill Saw to a depth less than the width of the siding material and run a board along the shingles/roof slope to create a nice clean even cut. Clearly, that had not been done. From the ground we could see that the cut lines were uneven and the siding was not flush. Our Lead Installer then conducted his inspection along the sidewall. Within a minute, he found that the Step Flashings were cut along the sidewall and there was evidence of mechanical damaged. The Step Flashings had gouge marks and was bent in a way that was not possible by hand. Bryan Manning took photos of this damage when he inspected the area. (Customer’s Name) was present, standing on the ground at the back of the property, and he explained explained what probably happened when the siding was cut. They then inspected the other side walls and found similar damage along the cut lines. This damage was presented to (Customer’s Name).
Manning Roofing explained that we would present a scope of repair and that the cost could be passed on to her siding contractor as they had cut the walls and created this damage.
The Scope of Repair was sent to (Customer’s Name) on 6/2/2022 and she refused to sign it as her siding contractor was not prepared to pay for the work. Our Scope of Repair was for $872.18. Manning Roofing agreed to do the work at no cost as long as the siding contractor was responsible for any chipped paint or siding damage. This would all be consequential damage because the distance from the roof surface had increased and nails that were holding the siding in place were now near the new cut line. It would be impossible for us to install the new Step Flashing without removing the nails and damaging the siding. The last thing we wanted was to be on the hook to repaint the entire house and replace all the siding because of another contractors mistakes! After a few conversations with (Customer’s Name), we felt sorry for the situation she had been put in and decided to do the repairs for free ($0.00).
Manning Roofing updated the Scope of Repair Contract and resent it to (Customer’s Name) on 7/12/2021.
Please note that (Customer’s Name) stated she “had other roofers out to the property and they said our install was incorrect”. We asked for the name of those roofers and for a meeting with them at her property so we could all be on the same page. (Customer’s Name) refused to provide us with anyones name or number and refused to let us have the meeting. This is when we started receiving complaints and allegations from (Customer’s Name).
Prior to the Civil Case , (Customer’s Name) filed the following complaints:
- Better Business Bureau: The BBB requested documentation and evidence of our work. They reviewed documentation MGC provided and the customers complaints. The “BBB has determined your company has addressed the issues within the complaint; therefore we have closed this case in our files.”
- Missouri Attorney General: A complaint was filed (CC-2022-09-006105) with the Missouri AG. We received a demand that we needed to provide documentation of our installation, Code Documentation, and photos of our installation. Manning Roofing provided all of this information. We also provided photos of the damage to the sidewalls caused by (Customer’s Name) contractor, and the mechanical damage to the Step Flashings. The AG agreed that Manning Roofing was not at fault and that we had handled the complaint correctly.
- Insurance Fraud – State Farm: (Customer’s Name) accused Manning Roofing of Insurance Fraud and we quickly had that dismissed when we sent State Farm copies of the installation of the roof and flashings. Note that State Farm did not pay for a lot of the work conducted at the property even after we sent in documentation and photos of the work being completed. This is a standard tactic by most carriers to create a rift between contractors and homeowners. State Farm chose not to reply to any of our calls or emails, nor did they update their insurance paperwork to add the line item for Step Flashing. This is a standard line item in Xactimate.
- Facebook Review/Recommendation: Apparently she does not recommend Manning Roofing. We encourage you to go to our Facebook page and read this review. In fact, we will post it below. (Customer’s Name) recommends that you use another Roofing Contractor to do work at your property. That contractor quoted (Customer’s Name) $5,949 to repair the damaged flashing. In fact, photos of their repair were identical to our scope of work. Note that we originally offered to repair that area for $872.18 and that cost had to be paid for by the siding contractor. We sent the contract over and she did not sign it. After a few conversations, we decided to do the work at no cost and help (Customer’s Name) as she had been put in a bad situation. We sent an updated contract on 7/12/2021 and she did not sign it. We sent multiple requests for signatures so we could start the work but (Customer’s Name) never signed. Instead, she chose to pay someone her “recommended contractor” an outrageous price to do the same scope. We asked that Roofer to provide us photos of their work which they did. Their repair was very similar to the Scope of Repair we provide (Customer’s Name). When the Judge saw their quote he asked if they replaced the entire roof. He was shocked that (Customer’s Name) was price gouged and when he reviewed our Scope of Repair at $0.00. – Facebook Review: ((Customer’s Name) doesn’t recommend Manning Roofing. Use (Her Contractors Name) instead. This company did not install my roof up to code and when confronted with the issue only offered patchwork. They have been unresponsive since I challenged them on the code violation that was confirmed by other roofers and my insurance company. Based on legal advice, I had to get another company to fix their faulty work and will be pursuing legal action.)
- Yelp Review: (Updated on 4/5/2023 after the Court ruled in Manning Roofings favor) Use another roofer instead. This company did not install my roof up to code and when confronted with the issue only offered patchwork. They have been unresponsive since I challenged them on the code violation that was confirmed by Bryan Manning, other roofers, and my insurance company. Bryan admitted in a email they could only install flashing based on the limitations of the previous install and they can’t push flashing up when the siding has nails. They would only repair the way it should have originally been installed if I hired another company to completely removed siding and let them repair and then have to reattach siding. That is not acceptable and Bryan stopped responding when I did not want this ridiculous option. Based on legal advice, I had to get another company to fix their faulty work and had to pursue legal action.
- Original Yelp Review: Use (Her Contractors Name) instead. This company did not install my roof up to code and when confronted with the issue only offered patchwork. They have been unresponsive since I challenged them on the code violation that was confirmed by other roofers and my insurance company. Based on legal advice, I had to get another company to fix their faulty work and will be pursuing legal action. https://www.yelp.com/biz/manning-general-contractors-lees-summit#reviews
Customer told Insurance Company that we did not install Step Flashing and State Farm advised/mislead her. This photo was sent to State Farm along with many others showing the installation of the Step Flashing. The State Farm Adjusters did not release payment for the work.
In short: Manning Roofing installed a new roofing system for (Customer’s Name). We went to lengths to protect her property and if you visit our office you will see photos of that Job-site proudly displayed on our wall. When (Customer’s Name) notified us of a leak we visited the property and could not find a leak to the roofing system we installed. Note that Ms. (Customer’s Name) did not notify us of another contractor doing work on the sidewalls so we did not inspect that area.
MGC visited your property on multiple occasions and offered to help you by fixing the other contractors mistakes at no cost. This evidence was also presented to the Court. We also provided evidence that we had been to your property and communicated with you on multiple occasions, yet you failed to sign the $0.00 contract to allow us to repair the flashings that were damaged by YOUR Contractor.
Then, the other contractor took advantage of you with a $5,949 repair (they gave you a 25% discount)! Maybe you thought you could stick it to Manning Roofing and have the last laugh. If anything, that is absolute price gouging! And the Court agreed.
The damage was caused by Your Siding Contractor. Our roof was installed for more than a year before they cut the side walls and damaged the flashings. We offered a Scope of Repair and you refused to sign it. In the end, you chose another roofer to do the exact same work and paid them an exuberant amount. I feel like they were preying on the situation and took advantage of you. We asked you if we could meet your Siding Contractor and Roofer at your property and you refused to let that happen. You wouldn’t even share their contact information with us so we could discuss the repairs. Now, you have reverted to slander on every Social Media Platform and review site. I recommend you speak with the Lawyer who you say has provided you legal advice and let them know what you have been up to.
Case No: 2316-CV01525
We will protect your property,
and take a lot of photos to protect ourselves!