AVOID THIS BUSINESS AT ALL COSTS. I had them attempt to install a patio on the back of my home. Part of the installation included the mounting of a $1000.00 solar shade seen in the uploaded photos. I stipulated that the solar shade was to be mounted flush against the south wall of my house extending an inch beyond the outside edge of the western-most column, to which Bill from Ozark Sunrooms and More agreed. As the photos clearly depict the solar shade was mounted six - seven inches to the side of the south wall of my home leaving a two - three inch gap between the edge of shade and the inside edge of the western-most column. I have repeatedly communicated this issue to Ozark Sunrooms and More, yet Bill refused to address this breach of contract. To add insult to injury, Thomas D. Stockland from Stockland & Trantham, P.A. emailed me this morning threatening to put a lien on my home unless I pay in full for work that is clearly in breach of contract. The technicians who can to install the cover admitted that this patio cover system was not one which they were familiar. Sensing my concern, they attempted to reassure me that the system was "pretty intuitive." It was obviously not. They struggled with how to install it at every step. After completing most of the work the technicians explained that they could not figured out how to mount the solar shade. They said that they had never installed a solar shade of this length before, ten feet; and, that it's size made it too heavy to attach directly to a panel itself. Additionally, they said, even if the panel could bear the weight, they couldn't figure out how to mount it as they did not have mounting brackets large enough to compensate for the slope of the panel over a span of ten feet. They apologized and said that Bill would have to come and figure out what to do. A week or so later Bill did come. He also acknowledged that he had never mounted a solar shade of this size before. After a while he proposed running an addition header that would be attached to the western-most column and the masonry of my home. I agreed, and he did so. He then mounted the solar shade to this new header. As per the first photo the new header was installed inside of the primary header which meant the solar shade could not be mounted, as previously agreed, ) When Bill came to show me the installation, I protested profusely, clearly and explicitly stating that this was not what we had agreed to. He flatly apologized and simply stated "that was the best we could do." I reiterated my intense disappointment and fervent disapproval to which he, again, flatly apologized and repeated, "that was the best we could do." I have to admit I was somewhat stupefied in my disbelief. Not knowing what else to do I decided to see if the solar shade would work in spite of its offset mounting. it does not. As the prevailing winds tend to be from west to east the edge of the house, against which the six - seven inches of shade rests due to its offset mounting, acts as a fulcrum twisting the shade inward in all but the slightest of breezes. This twisting motion frequently results in the solar shad being caught behind the western-most column and further buckling inward. In addition to the damage to the solar shade from the abrasion against my house and buckling inward against the western-most column, the offset mounting results in substantially less shade. The gap between edge of the solar shade and the inside edge of the western-most column, depending on the time of day, results in a large portion of the patio receiving direct western sunlight. When the solar shade has twisted and buckled inward after been caught behind the western-most column an even larger portion of the patio receives direct western sunlight. More concisely phrased, the offset mounting of the solar shade results in damage to the shade itself and prevents the shade from adequately performing its sole purpose. For photos you can see my Google Review
Brent W.
