We find it unfortunate that the member here found our work unsatisfactory after the work was completed and approved for payment by the member. She did notify us about the meter pit, which we will address in a moment, but never mentioned any other issue at the completion of the job, nor afterward. We are very proud of our A+ rating at the BBB, so it is our practice to address all legitimate issues before they ever become a complaint either with the BBB or on sites such as Angie's List. First, the property in question consists of 2 conjoined little cottages with rather odd architecture; the first built in 1896 and the other probably in the late 30s or early 40s. A regular shingle roof will never look "great" on these units, so we're happy that the member found them "OK." Second, the furnace pipe was straight at the completion of the work or it would not have passed the building inspection. It has happened in the past that the exhaust pipe was bumped and the inspector failed the inspection until we arranged with a HVAC contractor to check the internal connections and then straighten the rooftop pipe, so we know that the pipe was straight this time because the roof passed inspection on the first go around, as is normally the case with our roofs. The member admits that she has had the units totally remodeled, so it is quite possible that the pipe was knocked askew from the inside. Either way, had the member notified us, we would have been happy to come check it out and do whatever we needed to do to make sure the rooftop furnace vent was straight and functioning safely. But this complaint is the first we've heard about it. Third, we were never notified of a covered vent that wasn't supposed to be covered over. On the oldest unit, there was a hole in the roof covered with plywood when we first looked at the property. We were told that it was where some old vent pipe had gone through the roof but the interior stove (or whatever was vented there) was gone, so we were to roof over the spot. As that unit had to have a total decking overlay anyway because the original decking was not adequate for a modern roof, it was no problem to do. If the member is referring to the ridge vent on the newer unit, it was already covered over when we did the roof. In fact, it wasn't until we tore off the old roof that we discovered that there had once been a ridge vent there at all. Because the insurance was not paying to make it a functioning ridge vent (because it wasn't functioning before the claim), we went ahead and covered it over with the new roof as well, at extra expense to our company (we had to add decking to cover the exposed rafters up to the ridge on either side. This was all approved by the member. As for any other vents, again, we were never notified and, again, it would have failed inspection if we had covered over any holes above which there is a vent unit. And what an attic vent has to do with drains backing up is a complete mystery to us. This sounds like a plumbing problem, not an attic vent problem. Never the less, if we inadvertantly covered any vents, we will promptly correct them as soon as the member notifies us. Now to the meter pit issue. After the roof work was done and approved for payment by the member, she contacted us to accuse us of damaging the pit cover. We went out to check it out. The lot these cottages sit on was covered in weeds and, so nothing at ground level was very noticeable. When she showed us the pit cover, it looked like it had not been disturbed for a good long time. Plus, these kinds of equipment pits are sunken by design for the very purpose of being protected from heavy objects rolling over them. The member claims that it was damaged and that we had done it because, she claimed, her plumber had the pit open recently then came back and couldn't open it at all. When we asked her for the plumber's name so we could verify what the problem was, when he had been out and how to rectify the damage, she refused to provide it. But we told her anyway that if she could provide more evidence that we had damaged the pit cover, then we would be happy to help cover the cost of repairs. But because she was present when the crew backed their dump trailer up to the cottage, and possibly over the pit, yet said absolutely nothing to them about the obscured meter pit, we felt it was only fair that the member take some responsibility, as well. After all, she was far more familiar with her property than we were. This must have been what she perceived as "anger issues." Shortly thereafter, the member sent a semi-coherent letter to us taking offense at our reminding her about our contract that states we are not responsible for issues arising from pre-existing conditions of the property. We acknowledge that we will take full responsibility for our own negligence, however. The member also sent pictures of two different meter pit covers that she identified as "examples of meter covers." She did not claim they were pictures of the cover in questions and did not send a picture of the allegedly damaged cover. And yes, this situation would fall under the pre-existing property conditions; but even so, we were still willing to help pay for repairs if the member wished. The member never did ask us to pay anything, which was curious considering her accusations. That suggested to us that the meter cover was not really damaged or else she knew that it was not our crew who damaged it. As for the final walk-through in which we alledgedly told the member to go up on the roof in pouring rain, well, frankly, that simply never happened. It was indeed raining that day, and we had already inspected the crew's work earlier in the week and found it good, but final walk-throughs are about answering any questions or concerns the customer may have, not about them climbing on the roof if they don't want to. Some customers want to go up, but we never insist they do, and certainly not in the rain when we ourselves would not attempt to climb up. This accusation is interesting because it is well beyond the pale. We would have liked nothing more than to have another happy customer at the end of this job, but given that she would not provide us with sufficient evidence to prove that we caused damage nor, even, the name of the plumber who "discovered" it, nor notified us of any other issue since the completion, we are at a loss to help her. Legitimate issues we'll jump on right away, but strange and shifting issues just makes it seem like we're being taken advantage of and having our good reputation gratuitously smeared.