A A Roofing Co

I found A A Roofing Co the first winter after buying our house 18 years ago and rainwater leaked the through the ceiling in many places. It was a big job, a full roof replacement. My roof is a flat tar & gravel; a rowhouse in Washington DC. I had gotten many quotes and A A Roofing stood out easily as the most responsive, realistic with promises, workload, pricing, timing, actually came out to do a (free) in-person assessment and sent photos, and even still, came out as the 2nd lowest bid! They did such a thorough job, that almost 19 years later, my roof is still in great shape. They’ve done work twice now since then to do a recoating and once some maintenance work. They also come out as needed to check (for free) on the status of the roof; they always send me photos and are upfront and honest. This last time I was due for a recoating and to be assessed for a total replacement and they said my roof is A A OK :) - nothing is even needed at this time. (Continued below…)

Very good service.

Myy old gutters were in bad shape and needed replacement. I called A A Roofing and they were able to come out and provide a quote very quickly. I felt the quoted price was reasonable and hired them to do the work. I'm happy with the replacement and will use the company again for gutter and roofing work.

unknown

I was very pleased with AA Roofing which was recommended  by a friend. Mr.
Hammond was prompt, examined the roof and came back with pictures 
showing the leak and damages.  He was very polite and was excellent in
explaining the work that needed to be done. He mailed me a proposal with  
several options to choose from. 
His workers arrived early and again showed me pictures of their work
as it went along. I was very pleased with the job and I received a discount
because they did two jobs at once.  The work was done in a day.
The area was left clean. His employees were very professional and a
pleasure to talk with.
With the final bill, Mr. Hammond sent me copies of the pictures that were taken
before, during and after the work was completed. These are nice to have
for my files. 
I would definitely recommend AA Roofing to anyone and will gladly use them in the future.

---

They were awesome. They were very responsive and did what they said were going to do. They were in and out.

They came out and did an estimate of the job while I was at work. I received the estimate in the mail in the next couple of days. I called them to schedule a date for them to come out and fix the roof. They were able to come out before the storm came that evening. They were on time and the job went very well. I was very pleased with the work that was performed.

they did a thorough inspection on my roof and even replaced a part that was not included in the original price and did not charge me more..Very professional and I would use them again.

An experienced roofer and an engineer have both confirmed that the roof installed by AA Roofing was defective and not workmanlike -- and that hasty repair efforts on the part of AA Roofing in August of 2013 made things worse. The $22,385.00 I paid was a waste of money. The roof installed by AA Roofing was basically worthless and needs replacement.
Below is a summary of the Facts I have Submitted with a Complaint I have filed before the Maryland Home Improvement Commission. The numerous documents I have attached as exhibits to the original MHIC Complaint are omitted, but I will make available to anyone who is interested. AA Roofing responded to the Complaint by claiming that no one told them that the Flat Roof needed to be sloped. This is incredible -- a roofing company saying the customer has to tell them how the roofing company should fix the roof. I will make a copy of AA Roofing's response to my MHIC complaint also available to anyone who is interested.
BEFORE THE MARYLAND HOME IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
Statement of
Supporting Facts in Support of Complaint filed by Carlos M. Recio against AA
Roofing, LLC and its principal, Wayne Hammond.
1.
AA Roofing installed on September 1, 2010, a modified
bitumen rubber roof manufactured by Firestone Building Products at 9924 La Duke
Drive, Kensington, Md 20895 (“the La
Duke Drive residence”).
2.
AA Roofing sent an invoice in the final amount of
$22,385, representing the contract price of $17,885 plus additional charges of
over $3,000.00 for the plywood which had to be replaced, as well as built-up
rafters or joists required to rebuild and install the new roof.
III. EVENTS
AFTER THE INSTALLATION OF THE ROOF
3.
As one would expect after a brand new roof is installed
at a cost of $22,385, the Complainant believed that the roof had been properly
installed.
A.
In September
of 2012, Complainant is Informed that the Roof Installed by AA Roofing Lacks a
Slope or Pitch and is Deficient. Complainant
Places AA Roofing on Notice and is Falsely Assured that the Roof is Properly
Installed and That the Roof Does not Require Anything Further

4.
However, in September of 2012 another roofer examined
the top main roof and commented that the top main roof was improperly
installed, because it did not have a pitch or slope to it so that water would
flow off of the roof and not congregate.
5.
A licensed engineer examined the roof and confirmed
that this was the case – the failure to put a slope on the roof was shoddy and
meant the roof would not last and was not workmanlike.
6.
Complainant called Wayne Hammond of AA Roofing and met
with him in September of 2012. During
this meeting, Respondent Hammond claimed the AA Installed main roof had been
properly installed; that the main roof was designed to be flat and not to have
a pitch and that if a problem ever occurred with the roof, that his company
would honor the warranty and repair it within the warranty period.
7.
The Complainant was not sure who to believe at this
point and took no action.
B.
In July of
2013, Warping or Buckling of the Roof Takes Place, and Complainant Learns that
the Plywood on the Roof was Also Improperly Installed – and that the Roof Work
Done by AA Roofing was Deficient for this Additional Reason

8.
In the summer of 2013, it appeared that with the summer
heat, there was buckling or warping of the plywood on the main top roof
installed by AA Roofing.
9.
Accordingly, in the summer of 2013, additional
examination of the roof resulted in the roof being opened up in the presence of
a licensed engineer. The engineer confirmed
that the new plywood which AA Roofing had installed as part of the main roof
installation had not been nailed down, secured, or fastened at each end, such
that the plywood sheets were simply laid end-to-end and “hanging” in mid-air
and that was a glaring violation of basic standards of work.
10.
The engineer confirmed that the roof installed by AA
Roofing was improperly installed in every respect and required immediate
replacement with a new roof to avoid imminent buckling and leaks.
C.
Complainant
Places The Respondents on Notice of the Plywood Warping – Respondent Wayne Hammond First Claims That
there is Nothing Wrong because the roof is not then leaking and Then Agrees to
Stop by the House and Report his Findings.
Instead of Reporting to the Complainant, Respondents AA Roofing and
Hammond, in a Desperate Bid to Cover up Their Shoddy Work Perform extensive
Repairs to the warping Plywood, which Repairs were done without the Advance Knowledge
or Authorization of the Complainant.

11.
On July 31, 2013, the Complainant placed Respondents AA
Roofing and Hammond on notice of the additional roof deficiencies. .
48.
In response to Respondent’s July 31, 2013 letter, Respondent
Wayne Hammond initially stated in an email dated July 31, 2013 that the roof
was not defective and that the Complainant’s ex-wife and another roofer were
simply trying to get the Complainant to pay for a new roof when it was not
necessary.
49.
Thereafter, Respondent Hammond sent Complainant an
email saying he was going out to the La Duke Drive Residence that afternoon and
would report back. Respondents AA
Roofing and Wayne Hammond did not report anything back, but rather the Complainant
learned that AA Roofing had sent a crew and had spent several hours doing work
on the roof. This work was done without
the knowledge, consent, or authorization of the Complainant.
50.
The Complainant immediately sent an email asking the Respondent
to explain why he had done this work without discussion and review with the Complainant.
51.
In an August 13, 2013 email, Respondents AA Roofing and
Wayne Hammond stated the following:
a.
Claimed that there was a problem with the original
framing of the roof,
b.
For the first time, recommended that the Complainant
“call a siding company and have the proper vents installed in all the soffit
area so this roof can breathe properly”;
c.
Recommended that the roof be coated at an additional
cost of $2,400 “to help with the plywood issue.” This was directly contrary to what Hammond
stated to the Complainant in September of 2012 -- that a coating of the roof
was not necessary
D.
Complainant’s
Investigation of AA Roofing’s August 2103 Efforts to do Cover-Up Patchwork
Repairs Reveals that the Repairs were Themselves Deficient and Significantly
Aggravated the Deficiencies of the Originally Installed Roof.

52.
Thereafter, the Complainant and an engineer examined Respondent’s
August 12, 2013 patchwork repairs to the roof .
The post-roof repair investigation revealed the following:
a.
That AA Roofing had improperly repaired the buckling
and warping plywood installing new plywood pieces which were improperly