travelbug1984
New member
Georgia
TL;DR
I'm considering paying for a repair that should be under warranty (but company is claiming it is not), and then suing in small claims to recover the cost.
Background
In mid 2014 we contracted a roofing co. to replace part of the roof (let's call it part A) under a 5yr no leak warranty on our rental property (I am the owner). When I showed up on the morning of the work, I noticed the crew had torn off 3/4 of the existing roof, not just part A. We all realized the error, and they accepted their responsibility for the miscommunication and decided to proceed with replacing the entire roof.
They asked us verbally if we could pay just for the extra materials which we declined as it just wasn't in the budget nor did we have a role to play in the error. Instead we offered to and did post very positive reviews for them online.
In the following 1.5 years, they made 2 minor repairs to parts of the roof (which were not under part A) at no cost to us (because they rightfully considered it under warranty).
Sometime in 2016 this company was sold to new owners.
The Problem
A few weeks ago, a new leak developed. After the technician went over to look, they now claim that the new leak is not in part A therefore not under warranty because
They claim no notes exist in their database regarding the miscommunication nor anything regarding additional materials used beyond what would have been used for part A.
Documentation I have:
Documentation that does not exist:
Questions
My thinking is to pay for the repair to be done, then sue in small claims to re-coup the repair cost. Is this sensible/would I have a case or should I just chalk it up to lesson learned, should have got written warranty for all work? Am I responsible for what appears to be incomplete record keeping on their end and potentially using old materials? For what it's worth, this company has an excellent reputation and this is the first negative interaction I've had with them.
TL;DR
I'm considering paying for a repair that should be under warranty (but company is claiming it is not), and then suing in small claims to recover the cost.
Background
In mid 2014 we contracted a roofing co. to replace part of the roof (let's call it part A) under a 5yr no leak warranty on our rental property (I am the owner). When I showed up on the morning of the work, I noticed the crew had torn off 3/4 of the existing roof, not just part A. We all realized the error, and they accepted their responsibility for the miscommunication and decided to proceed with replacing the entire roof.
They asked us verbally if we could pay just for the extra materials which we declined as it just wasn't in the budget nor did we have a role to play in the error. Instead we offered to and did post very positive reviews for them online.
In the following 1.5 years, they made 2 minor repairs to parts of the roof (which were not under part A) at no cost to us (because they rightfully considered it under warranty).
Sometime in 2016 this company was sold to new owners.
The Problem
A few weeks ago, a new leak developed. After the technician went over to look, they now claim that the new leak is not in part A therefore not under warranty because
- They have no documentation that the entire roof was replaced, and
- In their professional opinion, the damaged area is much older than 5 years anyway so could not have been replaced in 2014.
They claim no notes exist in their database regarding the miscommunication nor anything regarding additional materials used beyond what would have been used for part A.
Documentation I have:
- Email correspondence with original owner showing initial contract and 5yr warranty for part A of the roof.
- Email correspondence showing us declining to pay anything above original contract price and offering to write positive reviews instead. Response from owner acknowledging and appreciating the reviews (which state detail the course of events including that the entire roof was replaced).
- Existing timestamped reviews on Yelp, screenshots from Nextdoor and Facebook groups where reviews were posted.
- Email correspondence regarding the 2 repairs done on roof not under part A (i.e. originally non-contracted) which we never paid for (because they were considered under warranty).
- Email correspondence where the original owner acknowledges the company replaced the entire roof.
Documentation that does not exist:
- Contract or warranty for entire roof. Any acknowledgment about warranty covering all additional work would have been verbal (my mistake clearly, I should have requested in writing).
- Discussions regarding the miscommunication that caused them to rip off more than they were supposed to, as these happened on the phone as soon as the error was realized. Request for us to pay for the additional materials (happened verbally).
Questions
My thinking is to pay for the repair to be done, then sue in small claims to re-coup the repair cost. Is this sensible/would I have a case or should I just chalk it up to lesson learned, should have got written warranty for all work? Am I responsible for what appears to be incomplete record keeping on their end and potentially using old materials? For what it's worth, this company has an excellent reputation and this is the first negative interaction I've had with them.
