Esther of Burke writes:
We
signed a contract with Royal to replace siding on our house in Burke,
the original siding having been damaged by a hailstorm in April 1999.
The workmanship was extremely poor and we requested that a state
inspector take a look at the work done.
He
reported that the siding was not put on according to manufacturers
instruction and informed the contractor, Royal Roofing, to redo the
house.
Royal
Roofing did agree to redo the whole house (we live in a duplex) and
hired an individual to start on our house about a month ago.
Although it looked like the siding was put on correctly, it was not
completed and we still had issues with some of the new work. The
siding was removed and replaced on the front and side of the house but
not the back -- only some minor problems were fixed when we had
specifically requested that the whole house be redone.
We
contacted the owner of the company when we realized that the
worker he had hired was not going to return. It took the owner about a week to get back in touch with us
and then another 10 days before he calls again to say that he will be
completing the house. In the meantime, we found out that the
contract we had signed did not have a clause that stated we had the
right of cancellation after 3 days of signing the contract -- apparently
a violation of the Virginia Consumer Act (or something like that).
We
contacted several consumer offices who said that the contract was
therefore null and void. We were so upset with all the problems we have endured with
Royal Roofing, including damage in our house, which they have not
repaired, that we decided to cancel the contract and told the company
that we were not going to pay.
The
owner then said he demanded his money and would put a lien on our house.
He called us again yesterday demanding the same thing. As far as
we are concerned we are not satisfied with the work done and do not want
to pay him. The day after my husband signed the contract, a
representative of Royal Roofing suggested that we and our neighbor
commit fraud by signing another contract which would be presented to the
insurance company. Therefore, we would have had two contracts --
one original with the amount the company was going to charge us and
another one with a higher amount which would be presented to the
insurance companies for payment. We have filed a complain to the
government office in Fairfax and one in Richmond.
My
husband has spent numerous hours on the telephone trying to speak to
various organizations about our problem.
We are both very upset with our situation.
This is our house, we have to live here, and we want it to be in
perfect condition.
We
have not yet paid for the roof and siding but apparently we now have a
lien against our house.
Since
a lien has already been entered, Esther urgently needs to consult with a
local attorney.
|
