Roofing company that sued Vancouver couple after bad review goes offline
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- The owner of Executive Roof Services said he has received a slew of one-star reviews after the company's lawsuit against a Vancouver couple who left it a bad review.
The company intentionally harmed themselves by choosing litigation instead of reprimanding their office manager and having her call the couple to apologize. This is going to backfire on them big time. What an idiotic business owner. And their attorney who thought this was the best course of action shows horrible judgment. I guess it's all about those attorney fees.
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
A stupid job
@@TheHare-rv3hj actually you may want to look up WA state law when it comes to renting anywhere for living. You have to be given at least 12 hours notice to the tenants if someone that representing the owner, in this case it would be the roofing company. When I needed outlet plugs changed out because they were no longer holding plugs, the landlord actually had them call me to set up the appointment. More than likely that is what happened in asking for a timeline on when this roofing company was going to fix said roof.
@@notright7 What has setting up an appointment for an inspection got to do with demanding a timeline for repairs and demanding the inspection report on the part of the tenants? Of course it's reasonable to have a 12-hour notice law for tenants to schedule inspections. That doesn't mean that the landlord has a contract with the company or that the landlord is dealing with issues with the insurance company or mitigation company. Maybe the landlord is planning on getting 3 estimates. Maybe the insurance company still needs to come out and inspect. Regardless, the tenant has ZERO right to any of the documentation or information about the job from the roofing company. The receptionist was correct in saying that the renters had to interface with their landlord. This video doesn't even state whether the landlord had a contract with this company. The video also shows that the tenants were trying to demand the inspection report through the BBB. They don't have the right to that. They are not the home owner. What has your landlord telling an electrician to set up an appointment with you to get plugs fixed got to do with this? Your landlord engaged the electrician to come fix the plugs. It wasn't you calling one of his potential electricians and trying to place them under contract.
Backfire or not, rude or not. Yes, the couple has the right to leave reviews. However, they started the feud unnecessarily by doubling down and sending a letter to the better business bureau, which they did not have a right to do. Tenants have no right to call up a service provider and ask for details, they are not the owners. The landlord ordered the inspection, the roofing company cannot give any information to anyone but the person who ordered the inspection. The question I asked as soon as I saw the first report. Was why were they even calling the roofer when they had no right to do so? Whether she did so in a rude manner or not, the office manager told her the truth, she could not give that information to her, and told her to call her landlord to get the details. Which she should have done. Instead of going to the landlord her boyfriend called the roofer, when he had no right to, and was given the same answer. No, you can’t have that information, call the landlord. He should never have sent the letter to the better business bureau. They were being stupid and abusive at that point.
Once they ordered the couple to cease and desist about their GoFundMe page, what little chance they had was completely gone. It was direct proof they intended to abuse the couple financially.
Cease and Desist on what grounds ?
@@rafalcyran8720they probably mentioned them or their licensed company name ERS, in the gofundme. I think they started a different one,or took the company’s info out 🤷🏼♀️
On the grounds it's a frivolous lawsuit, and they don't want the couple to be able to defend themselves. They have no business being in business. @@rafalcyran8720
@@user-pe3tt7iu7g depends on the rich person some are not.
They should file a counter suit against the company.
What goes around, comes around. If the roofing company believes it's okay to bully someone and try to destroy them, they can hardly complain when it happens to them in retribution.
❤
You got shot with a BB gun twice and came back with tanks. Now the internet rightfully returned with nuclear weapons. Was it worth it?
Excellent analogy.
Well said 👏👏👏👏👏
This is beautiful. As rich as someone is, it’s hard to fight the media and the public.
😂 exactly. The internet isn't known for liking ppl who question their American right to freedom of speech!
I love this TL DR description
Companies that sue over a bad review are commonly companies with a poor track record of customer service. If you don't want bad reviews, do a better job of satisfying the customer, and hire a receptionist who won't be rude to customers as well. Hire people with customer service experience, otherwise you can kiss your business goodbye when you screw over too many customers with crappy customer care.
Exactly
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the receptionist is a family member or mistress. I looked the company's reviews up and they're pretty good - even with people dog piling on them over this. It's the only thing to me that seems to explain this irrational lashing out. I could be wrong though.
@@EricDaMAJ given the way they're reacting to this bad review, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're buying positive reviews. It's not hard at all to buy good reviews, and if they just shelled out lots of money to inflate their ratings it might explain why they're so mad that about a bad review.
@@EricDaMAJ I still believe they deserve to go under for this!
This is a clear violation of the First Amendment!
Yep, they should have instead focused their energy training their office manager to better understand customer service and given her a probationary (depending upon track record, which does not look good according to other reviews) task to reply to the customer publicly. This was their opportunity to exonerate themselves and they blew it. If you're a business owner and get a 1-star review and you are that worried about it, try pretending like you care about the person who felt so wronged and reply right there. Or..... I guess just throw money at lawyers so you can get your "free" payday..... smh
Please counter sue for extreme harassment, mental, and emotional damage, as well as time spent dealing with this ridiculous issue. Reviews are meant to protect consumers and I very much appreciate that you took the time to give a 1 star review. It is important that people are not afraid to leave reviews.
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
Good Idea! Get more lawyers involved!
@@MinaKay84 OMG.
@@TheHare-rv3hj chill bro 😎 .They are telling people about the rude behaviour they face when they talked to the lady on phone. And no one can stop them from saying that on Google maps.
@@busybusiness9121 No. I'm not going to chill. The people in this nation have become illiterate, whining, thumb-sucking babies who do not understand the judicial system, civics, and have no common sense. They're costing this nation too much. I once had a judge say that one of the main things he does in his job is to educate the public about the law. You get two litigants in a court room and one is likely right and the other likely wrong. Sometimes both sides are somewhat right and wrong. Ultimately a judgement has to be made and someone is going to lose. Going to court is an expensive, time consuming, resource wasting venture that often entails risk. There are some great judges out there, and there are some real assholes and diptard judges out there. It's a toss of the dice as to who you end up in front of. I've been dragged in front of judges due to people's miraculous stupidity and arrogance. The plaintiffs LOST in every case. It still cost a lot of time, money, and grief to get these retards an education! It wasn't my education; it was their education. The kind of brainless crap in this video pisses me off to no end because people need an education in the law and common sense. You, "busybusiness" are WRONG. And you would lose in a court of law on your arguments.
This company's is its own worst enemy. Why would anyone now do business with them?
Hopefully not many after this horrible decision
They will just close their doors and then re-open under a new name.
someone start a "Go Fund Me" for a top defense ?? asked and answered.....
Poor business, even asking for stupid lawsuits
It should not be so much about the company as it should be more about the person who owns the company and is willing to go to such extreme lengths. Keep in mind he'll open another business under another name and hopefully when he does the state of Washington has their records public so people can find him. Someone in county offices needs to keep an eye out for this cause he'll do it again to another couple if given the chance.
😂 Their google page says permanently closed. Hilarious
😂
They allegedly did it on purpose to prevent anyone else from leaving negative reviews
Good.
I'm in Ohio! They're not getting my business lol Sounds like a pathetic company that can't handle the criticism. Should have spoken with the secretary and set her straight, not threatened a lawsuit lol PATHETIC
It is back up again!
Such an obvious SLAPP lawsuit. The company’s bearded road apple lawyer needs to be censured too.
Can you be sued by the roofing company for saying that? Isn’t that also defamation of character?
@@deoglemnaco7025 In order for it to be considered legally defamatory for a lawsuit, the alleged statement must be false and not given as an opinion.
I said it was a SLAPP lawsuit. Specifically that means a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. A SLAPP lawsuit, per Wikipedia, is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. This lawsuit was directed at the defendants due to their online review knowing they could not afford a legal defense. As such, my post is a statement of truth. That said, only the roofing company can accuse me of making a defamatory statement about their lawsuit.
Their lawyer is a different case as I addressed him directly I stated he was bearded, which in the video he clearly is. I also stated he was a road apple - to wit, a piece of animal feces left on a road. While not literally true, it is hyperbole that no reasonable person could assume was true. Feces deposited on the road cannot get law degrees or pass the bar. (Though I'd be hard pressed to explain how considering the state of our legal system) If I had posted something like "he sniffed little girls," or "he cheats on his wife" that's specific enough someone could reasonably believe I'd witnessed him doing so or possessed evidence of it. Such statements if proven false, would be considered legally defamatory and I could legitimately be sued for it. There is a reason Hunter Biden isn't suing people who call him a corrupt, influence peddling, crack addicted, firearms criminal. If there wasn't proof of that he could sue and shortly own every conservative media outlet in the nation.
Getting back to the bearded road apple who likes to do SLAPP lawsuits, there's a small chance even if I did say something legally defamatory it might get thrown out by a sympathetic judge.
@@EricDaMAJ I understand now. I am president of an HOA and generally am hated because of what I do to keep the property safe. When I was doing an unannounced inspection on a owner unit the other week, I was arrested.
What I’m trying to do now is sue him so he can’t testify against me in court. If I can get a restraining order on him, there’s no way he can
@@deoglemnaco7025 Good luck with that. HOAs in this country have an evil reputation run by corrupt crypto fascist Karens. So if a jury gets involved you're in for an uphill battle Unless he signed a waiver in his lease or HOA agreement allowing unannounced inspections, you're likely guilty of trespassing. Depending on how you entered, breaking and entering too. I seriously doubt a restraining order works in the way you're hoping it does. Restraining orders keep him from coming within a certain distance of you, contacting you, and possibly posting stuff on public forums about you. Court testimony with a judge and armed bailiffs - or via Zoom - wouldn't violate it. (Though forgive me if your local laws say otherwise.) You need to use them fat HOA fees to get a lawyer and not ask randoms on the internet.
@@deoglemnaco7025 you are a gross POS too, clogging up the courts with your b*******.
The receptionist was the owners side chick. That is why he went crazy like he did. Now he basically ruined himself. Who wants to do business with a company that will sue you for 100k because they have a mean receptionist.
Is this legit.
sounds right
Im almost positive the attorney is in company photos on their site too. I went to their yelp review and the guy next to the red head in the black shirt looks just like the attorney from the first news story. Something fishy is definitely going on here. I'm guessing he's family or a good friend because any sane attorney would stay away from a case like this.
Spot on
I hope that roofing company's business goes down the toilet
They moved location to reset their reviews.
On ERS Facebook page the day before this story was written they touted receiving a Best of Vancouver Award.
If this is the behavior of Vancouver's best, then I'd steer clear of the city entirely.
They probably achieved that by threatening anyone posting bad reviews IIMHO.
They are rich, white conservatives. Pretty sure they have friends in high places to help with things like that. They definitely did not get voted by 'renters' or 'poor' people they bullied.
@wsrtwetr funny you said that in all my years of hiring contractors (landscaping, plumbers , electricians ) it was always this rich liberals company that complained about everything. From "call me by my pronouns" to "it's gonna take longer then expected " while there just sitting there looking at there phones . I can tell you they were liberals especially with ther blue dyed hair color wearing.
It’s amazing that the company isn’t saying that the couple lied!
This was 2 years ago, but the company is still operating and suing people.
No they only claiming they weren't hired by them, therefore the review is no legit, I find it to be a vague technicality.
@@lcfflc3887 Its irrelevant if they hired them or not. They commented on their treatment from the receptionist when they called the business. Which is truthful and protected speech. If this hurts their business, so be it.
Owner's can respond. They can say "We apologize for your treatment and the receptionist is no longer working with us" Companies fail if they dont address negative behavior.
@@lcfflc3887The reviews themselves don’t violate Google’s TOS . People don’t have to be a customer to leave a review. The couple called and spoke with the business, so they had a direct personal experience with ERS. The fact that ERS called the couple back and sent a text message further validates the legitimacy of the review.
Exactly, and truth is an absolute defense for slander/liable suits.
The reviews themselves don’t violate Google’s TOS . People don’t have to be a customer to leave a review. The couple called and spoke with the business, so they had a direct personal experience with ERS. The fact that ERS called the couple back and sent a text message further validates the legitimacy of the review.
Not only that, I can't believe legislation was passed for this kind of thing. If you lie, you can be sued, period. If you're giving your opinion, you can't be sued, period. The company invited opinions and they didn't like it when they got them. Tough shit.
They have a few genuine very bad reviews. The owner is a tool and is sleeping with the receptionist.
I hope they go out of business. Petty crap like this is a definite red flag. I hope the couple getting sued fights back and wins. This is just petty.
The couple is petty. Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
@@TheHare-rv3hjShill harder roofing company white knight.
Exactly. That business deserves to go under. I’m glad that they are getting one star reviews and threats!
@@melovetorun Why? Why do you wish that for them? Have you ever owned a business? Do you understand the legal ramifications for them if they interact with the tenants instead of the property owner?
@@TheHare-rv3hj Don’t care Karen.
There is no way in hell that this sleazy roofing company will prevail in court against reviews by unhappy customers. The new law doesn't need to take effect to protect this couple. Existing law does. Get a lawyer. They will take their fee from the damages they collect from this roofing company for its malicious suit against citizen participation.
They dropped their case after this.
I would never hire this company based on the lawyers interview alone. Can you imagine if they did work for you and you had a complaint. Would they come back out and correct the situation or would they sue you for defamation.....? IMO.. That lawyer was so cheesy he can be found in your store's dairy case.
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
@@TheHare-rv3hjYou clearly have an agenda. You have no moral compass. Imagine supporting a company that intimidated and bullied people via text like common thugs. Thuggish, ghetto behavior by the owner.
@@TheHare-rv3hj Shut up, Michael, no one believes you and you're really not that bright
Well the case was dismissed so all that bullshit you typed means nothing. Good job trying to completely reimagine the definitions of words to fit some shitty mold that makes this scenario favorable for the business. You'd make a great shitbag lawyer just like the useless brainlet the business hired.
@@TheHare-rv3hj Found the clueless business owner 😂. "We should be able to be rude to people and face no consequences for it!"
While You're correct that this couple isn't THE customer, they did have a negative interaction with the company, and have a right to complain about that. The business also has a right to defend itself in a response. A reasonable response to an unreasonable review is better than any 5 star review in my opinion. Imagine if instead of suing this couple, they simply replied to the review with: "We're sorry about your negative experience with our receptionist. It's entirely possible she became overly frustrated with your continued demands for information we are not at liberty to share. We take the privacy of our customers very seriously, and while you are living in the house in question, your landlord is our customer, and has not granted us permission to share details of their account or planned work. We suggest you contact your landlord for any further information."
From article - After the negative interactions with the receptionist, the couple posted their reviews and also filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau because they hadn't received a report on the expected timeline of the work, KGW8 reported.
Shortly after, they were contacted by the company's owner - Michael Mecham.
"He told me that he knew where I lived. He said he had forensics guy and that he would gladly spend a hundred thousand dollars suing me," Knepper told KGW8. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................the company's owner - Michael Mecham sounds like a pussy.
Careful hes got "forensics guys" he can send after you whatever that means. He'll sue you for leaving a youtube comment. You're not his customer so you cant call him a giant pussy man baby male karen.
Wait till you meet his wife Cheryl mecham who has a public facebook page.
The cease and Desist only shows me the company knew they would lose against an Honest Lawyer. Sue the Company for emotional damage and harassement.
Their review on Google are all fake.
I wonder how accurate the other Google reviews are if the company sues somebody for a 1 star review?
On Yelp now there's several 5 star reviews that don't seem genuine because they way they're written; like reviews in ads.
The backlash was deserved. When you retaliate (extremely imo) to honest & fair criticism from consumers because you don't like it, other consumers will burn you down for it. We don't need to know the victim(s), we're decent human beings who stand up for what's right. Seemingly unlike this business!
The company fooled around and found out. Even if the couple were intentionally trying to harm the company, to the public it's going to look like the company is just beating up the little guy. They should have reached out to them and handled this like civilized people.
The dildo of consequences strike again lol often unlubed.
The arrogance of that lawyer was shocking.
Welcome to the internet, ERS. Major bonehead move there chief.
Can you imagine being such an unsuccessful company with so much free time on your appointment schedule that you feel an overwhelming need to sue over a bad review? So many small businesses thrive despite bad reviews. My company was bombarded with bad reviews from a employees of a VENDOR because our comoany poorly reviewed their company on behalf of our clients that were shafted by their poor service. Our loyal satisfied clients visciously defended us. It just goes to show how true the review must have been if there was no one willing to defend them but a paid attorney....
These companies must know or should know, that reviews are the report cards from their customers that keep them in business. Friendly personal contact with the person that left a not so approving rating, is a resource for either doing better or knowing you done as much as you could to rectify the situation, while maybe even having the customer reviewing their rating and giving others by changing it, a more respectful view of the business and even a prospective client. We all make mistakes, But trust and understanding are harder to come by in these times. Being honest should be the first step toward getting back or even bettering the future of our society.
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
"TheHare" is spamming this same exact comment on so many comments here. Just report and that you see and eventually TH-cam will get them all.
@@Alaryicjude he definitely works for that company. No one feels that strong about a news story! Strong enough to go through a s**t ton of TH-cam comments to reply to so many of them! But hey it's entertainment for now.
@@TheHare-rv3hj Are you the Office Manager that the couple spoke to? If not you sure sound like it.
@@Alaryicjude A true patriot and proponent of the First Amendment, aren't you. Maybe what I'm saying makes you think too hard.
Crooked contractor and slimey lawyer. Sue me! 🤪
Let's see who files for new roofing licenses in Vancouver
Now I'm gonna go give them a bad review
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
@TheHare-rv3hj whether they should have contacted the roofing company directly or not, there is no reason for the receptionist to be rude and offensive. As a retired business owner, it was not unusual for me to get occasional misplaced calls, generally about funding. When I did, I would simply explain that I was unable to answer the query, but that I could take details and pass the callers info on to an appropriate department if they needed, or give them the contact details if they wanted to do so themselves. It costs nothing to be courteous, and to help people who are unsure, and that's what people remember. To give a one star review for being treated rudely by a company receptionist says more about the owner/manager. Deal with the receptionists attitude before you fire off at the person making enquiries.....it could be someone looking fir business next time, and that's money lost and a bad review against your company. If he'd offered an apology in the first place, andxredirected the couples query, or made the effort to contact the landlord on their behalf, this could all have been avoided
@@TheHare-rv3hj yeah OK Michael Mechem, show the world you can do it right this time lol
You shouldn't be in business. You should work for someone else. Try not to steal from them
Wait till the twitter mob finds out the wife Cheryl is a blue lives matter person lol
@user-xb4je4kr6v LOL! What drugs are you on?
Was gonna go write a bad review but looks like they're already closed 🤣
There is an executive roof services located in Portland, so they probably own both.
Yeah, i looked it up. Same company. So feel free to drop your one star review on their portland listing.
Didn't the tenants just want a timeline for when the work was going to be done? Maybe they had to move things or themselves while the work was being done. Communication from the landlord or the roofing company would be important. A lot wasn't explained in these news segments.
These are the tenants demanding the work be done?
My review I can say what ever My review feels needs to be said! F them!
ERS had most of those 1 star reviews removed, and now is full of bullshit 5 star reviews. What a fucked up company.
The fact that this companiy is still up and running today - makes me want to puke.
so the roofing company treats there customers like family. mental abuse is a form of violence so maybe they do or they are confused in how a company should be helpful and courteous to every contact they make regardless because you never know the gains you may make or the pit falls you can avoid.
This all started because of the receptionist being rude. Now that receptionist is bringing that company down the drain all over the news.
Congratulations. You’ve reached the “Find Out” portion of the program
bullying, pure and simple bullying.
Company needs to change their name to Snowflake Roofing.
Shh don't say that. The wife appears to be rather conservative, religious and blue lives matter. You know the type.
🤣😂🤣 This company just cancelled themselves!!
Reminds me of a Portland roofer I called years ago for a repair estimate.
I came home one day and saw a shoddy mis-matched repair done (unauthorized).
I then got a bill, and when I called, they insisted that I did authorize the repair when In actuality I was in the process of getting additional quotes.
I was threatened with court, and I was accused of verbally abusing the receptionist, which was completely untrue.
Was there any affiliation with Stalcup Roofing, or are they all like this?
If someone modified your house without getting the go-ahead and then tried to charge you it seems like you are the one who should be seeking court. How did that end up resolving for you?
Funny you say Oregon. They do have an office in Oregon.
So there is a right and wrong way to go about things. Yes this couple is not technically the client and do not have the right to speak or make negotiations, the landlord does. The very easy way to have solved this was for the receptionist to stay professional and advise the couple that while they understand the frustration they will have to speak to their landlord. Bam all issues solved
Good job you solved it!!!!!!!!!+++
Or they could have replied and said “we are sorry for your experience calling our office but it is company policy to only give information to the party that contracted us. Please talk to your landlord.”
Or something similar. It’s really not hard. The company has a little money so now they feel entitled.
They do have a right to call the company and ask questions though and since the roofing job was literally effecting the place they live, its completely understandable why theyd want to know timetables and its actually a legal requirement for the landlord to provide such things when it comes to maintenance.
That being said, it would be fine for the company it self to refuse giving that information to anyone other than the property owner. But people seem to be confused on how google reviews work. You dont have to be the customer to leave a review. A review can be based on any interaction you've had with said business. Just because they werent the customer doesnt mean they couldnt have a bad interaction with the business and leave a review based on that. For instance say I called a restaurant and wanted to order something but the person who answered the phone was extremely rude. I wouldnt follow through with an order and technically not be a customer and yet a review based on that would be 100% valid.
@@doc-holliday- Affecting the place they live* or Having an effect on the place they live*. Google has more info if you'd like to learn how to recognize the difference. Affect vs Effect. ;)
@@thundasc If you're going to correct grammar on throwaway TH-cam comments, make sure you can string together 3 sentences of your own without several grammar mistakes. The word 'Having' shouldn't be capitalized in your first sentence. You should have also used a comma. It's also conventional to put the asterisk after the word being corrected, and not at a random point in the sentence.
Google has more info if you'd like to learn more. ;)
Put this company out of business.
This company deserves to go out of business
I just looked up the case number on the trellis law website and shows the case was dismissed and so the couple owe that scumbag NOTHING.
News crews need to go the their office and find that rude "office manager". I believe her name is Michelle.
There is a micheal the owner, Cheryl the wife, and a michelle that was name as business manager on their yelp page.
No one in America should ever have their voice silenced 😡 stand up against a bully is like being scared of the dark....until you realize that nothing’s there.
The roofing company feels like a personal enemy and I don't even live in that state.
Two years later. What happened?
Case dismissed back in 2021 I believe.
Can we get an update please?
Nobody will dare to do business with them. The moment you complain, you get sued - this was a bad business practice.
Don’t use that company
If only they would have been nice to the couple and called back or said "hey we messed that one up very sorry." BUT noooo.... They had to lawyer up! Well I believe that lawyer just lost them their business. Seem like some one got bad legal counsel.
The roofing company got what it deserved by suing them because they couldn't handle the bad press. I take reviews with a grain of salt, if you read into them, you can tell who is lying and who isn't...but the moment the company sues a reviewer...yup, not a company I would want to do business with since as a customer they may sue me for something I say to them while we work together. Karma is a bitch and they just had a big plate of it put in front of them...wonder how much money they will lose now.
The receptionist was likely a family member of the owner or a very long time protected employee. People are rude when they have no fear of being fired and reflect the attitude of their employer.
Any company that has a 4.8-5.0 rating on any service should be immediately suspect. It's cheaper to go after Google or Yelp to have negative reviews removed than it is to avoid the negative reviews altogether.
Very true. Companies request bad reviews be removed and google remove them.
@@vontrap6942 That's not how Google works
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
@@TheHare-rv3hj That'd be like me saying that every person who ever wrote a one-star review about the Post Office bringing their mail late or damaged should be sued because the person who mails the letter is the customer, not the recipient. Technically, under your logic, unless you're mailing a letter that day, you are not the customer, everyone who mailed you things would be.
I'm not a fan of review bombing, but at the same time, I am not sure that removing the only places to share a subjective opinion based solely on whether you hired them (say your neighbor hired their house painted, and the contractor got overspray on your car. You contact them, and they refuse to deal with it) will result in anything other than people just suing companies into the ground since it's less legally trepidatious than leaving a Google review.
I agree with Google removing obvious review bombing, but being critical of a service that is directly impeding your right of quiet enjoyment, whether you hired them or not, is protected free speech. They had an interaction whether or not they are the initial customer, and are 100% entitled to memorialize their impressions of that interaction because, unlike the fake reviews, the interaction actually happened. The company chose the Streisand Effect of their own ego, inadvisably, instead of handling it like normal people. Damages have to be based on actual harm, not just a bruised ego, and based on the extremely high burden on what constitutes tortuous speech set forth in Washington law, the lawsuit is frivolous and 100% a SLAPP suit.
@TheHare-rv3hj look Micheal, you were fck 2 years ago, you're eff again today ok. Take the L, go home and eff your wife. The internet will eff you in the arse either way. The other option would be to come up with an apology and make it public. But nooo big business owners like you don't do that.
She should get sued for $100,000 for wearing that bull-ring in her nose in full public view. It looks like snot dripping from her nose..
Karma is a Bitch...
ERS thought they was going to bully these folks cause they was butt-hurt over a bad review now look at them...
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
instead of fixing the problem ERS made it worse
Any follow-up with this? Did anyone prevail?
Case was dismissed according to redditors who showed screenshot
This company deserves to go under over this!
It’s a clear violation of their first amendment rights!
Vancouver is in Canada. The reporter was quoting a law that goes in effect in Washington state. Different countries.
@@Augie13 Sorry to bust your bubble but there is also a Vancouver, Washington in which this couple and this roofing company reside. Vancouver, Washington sits just on the other side of the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon.
Nothing makes a company look worse than filing a lawsuit over petty shit.
They are online and still scamming people.
This was a complete own-goal by ERS. Just like the Barbara Streisand Effect.
LOL
HOPE THEY GO TO JAIL FOR WASTING OUR TIME
They might not want this business ruined but apparently the owner and his attorney did.
Protip for any company owners out there. If someone leaves a bad review, instead of threatening them with ab obvious slap suit; listen to their feed back. "The Office Manager was extremely rude and disrespectful" is something you can easily and cheaply address with a quick conversation with your staff. Who seemingly might be family as their attorney really tried to play up the "Family Owned" (Ok so it's not a massive publicly traded corporation Wow.. /s) aspect of the business. If my sisters, daughter, aunt, or mother was being rude to my customers I'd deal with that quickly and firm but respectfully with my employee ESPECIALLY if we're kin.
This business deserves to go under for trying to destroy innocent people who left an honest review. "But they weren't the customer." Then politely apologize and state our privacy policy doesn't allow us to discuss the matter with anyone who isn't the actual direct customer please do not blame us for your landlords lack of response." See how easy that is? Instead of being rude treat future possible customers with respect and your business will last a lot longer.
This was business Darwinism in action.
lawsuit got dismissed in the end, the company still exists and apparently is doing well
judging by the 4.2 google score and only 147 reviews they managed to remove most of the 1 stars, but not all
they are active on facebook and restrict the comments heavily, no lesson was learned
Many companies pay, mostly to Chinese IT companies to buy good reviews. This is the 1st time I have heard about this story. This company is about 5 mins from my house, I will never hire them.
Watched this two years later. What was the outcome?
Case was dismissed by Pussy mike
I feel like this would be an occasion where if the company got canceled I could understand. Definitely not a fan of how easy it is to cancel someone now in days and I don't believe its a right course of action every single time but I could definitely understand this one. I'm sure the company and workers will be fine, what I see happening is stock holders/investors (people who can vote on company decisions) will vote to remove the CEO and put in place a new one if that is how their business works
The company isn't very smart. Whoever made that choice just shut down that business. Nobody would be dumb enough to choose that company going forward.
Probably just rebranding, Im not losing sweat over the rich dbag that did this.
Yup. Rebranding with a brand new company name.
So what is the status now? January 2024?
Gee I wander why they got a bad review ? Oh now we know.
Sounds like a case of one rude receptionist casting a company a lot.
The company is just a bully picking on poor people.
Giving this company a 5-star review based on the news story about the renters who 1-stared them. The renters are not customers of this company. The renters are customers of their landlord. The renters do not own the house and have no contract with the roofing company. The roofing company puts themselves at risk if they interact with the tenants and circumvent the real customer, being the LANDLORD. The renters have the right to interface with their landlord, complain about their landlord, and/or sue their landlord. The landlord has an obligation to get the roof fixed. The landlord is the interface person between every roofing company he goes with and his tenants. The roofing company has every right to sue the whining, thumbsucking tenants for libel. The courts will determine their standing. I'm so sorry that businesses have to go through this harassment because GOOGLE refuses to hold reviewers to GOOGLE'S own TERMS OF SERVICE. GOOGLE ought to be sued in a class-action suit with the goal of paying out to every business who has complained about reviews from people who have never been customers. Everyone has the first-amendment right to free speech, however, no one has the right to commit libel. If the couple weren't spoiled brats with no brains in their head, they would remove the reviews and interact with their landlord. If I were their landlord, I would evict them for stirring the pot through the wrong channels.
Stupid stupid owners. I emailed my opinion today not noticing the date was 2 years ago. I am glad they will see that criticism on the internet never goes away. I would never use them simply for suing her.
The company suing the couple is definitely reprehensible. HOWEVER, the review the husband left WAS inaccurate. He claimed that they wouldn't answer questions about an estimate HE requested. But it was actually his landlord who requested the estimate. For his/her own reasons, their landlord didn't choose to share that information with them. They are not automatically entitled to private contractual information between their landlord & the company just because they temporarily reside in the house. It sounds to me like they were butting in to something that was not their business. Unless they intended to help pay the $12,000 or whatever it would cost to do the roof, it's really not their concern. As a landlord & a roofer, my sister would agree. She wouldn't give that information to a tenant when she made the contract with the owner. And she wouldn't want her tenants meddling in contracts for repairs on her properties.
He requested the repairs from his landlord, whom he pays and is responsible for coordinating the repair of the damage. He's a customer in my book. For something like this, that can damage tenant property, they should absolutely be willing to share this information with the tenant unless, for some reason, the landlord specifically asked that they don't. I don't buy this "he's not a customer because the check doesn't have his name on it". It's an income property. He's paying money that's paying the roofer and it's his property that's at risk if the damage isn't repaired in a timely or complete manner.
Uhm, I think it was more the fact that the receptionist was a BITCH
What roofing company are you with?
@@rwtwb I agree with your sentiment. In spirit, yes, it's the tenant's request. But on paper, it's the landowner's. Most companies only release information to people whose name are on the contract with the company. It's standard practice to protect their own behinds. You don't know who's asking or what rights they have. So to play it safe, just say you can only release that information to the person who signed the work order. And I think that's the issue. The receptionist could simply say that nicely. The owner can explain it nicely. But neither did.
@@elsonlam Indeed. If it's a compliance issue all you can do is state that, politely, and direct them to their landlord. Or something like "We understand and we'd love to keep you in the loop, but since your landlord has initiated the request, we'll need their consent." Then, if they leave a bad review, the way to deal with that would be to directly respond to the review. Google puts those replies rights under the review, and I don't know about you, but when I'm perusing reviews I read those one-star reviews and make my own decision. Especially if there's a reasonable sounding response from the owner right below it. This company had options other than the courts that they could have used to address the review.
I’m totally gonna hire that roofing company that sues their customers
Best to get the owner's name publicized because he'll try to come back under another license and named business. People have to protect one another from these types. Hopefully the media coverage has let the area know full well not to do business with a company that is willing to sue you and then try to silence you. Neighbors and families all across the area need to continue sharing and passing on the story. Compensation should also be awarded to the couple for the stress and anxiety caused by the company. Best to get the owner's name publicized because he'll try to come back under another license and named business. People have to protect one another from these types.
That roofing company and the Lawyer suck and are in line for worst humans of the month...that's just my opinion
Wonder how many jobs he’s lost from this story? After the recent storms I need roof work. I found this story by checking the business online unfortunately for this company I’m looking for a roofer and googling their company gave me this…
This should be a slam dunk for any competent lawyer
😂 is the roofer going to sue everyone now for the threats ?!
If pussy Mike have the money he might but considering how he's begging business on their fb, highly doubt it.
To the roofing owner: play stupid games, win stupid prizes
ERS shouldn't have been a dick. Once someone stands up to a bully other people come forward. It's proof this office manager was the one who was in the wrong here! I want to know what she was telling the business owner as an excuse for her behavior!
The company tactic is stupid and no wonder backfired. It should get counter-sued. I have no pity on it shutting down if it gets to.
I had a dermatologist who sent a prescription to a pharmacy in another town. Every time I called to tell them my pharmacy didn’t have the script, they were so rude. I deleted all my one star reviews and such bc I was scared they were going to sue me like this. Total sham, I realize some people can blast a company unfairly… but this kind of coercion to remove one star reviews should be highly illegal.
Please go and leave a 1 star review.
To this business . They delete negative reviews by paying google.
And they pay others to post positive reviews
Keep in mind he'll open another business under another name and hopefully when he does the state of Washington has their records public so people can find him. Someone in county offices needs to keep an eye out for this cause he'll do it again to another couple if given the chance. Someone said his name was Michael Micham on here. Just look for businesses opened up under his name or an LLC he might own. Internet makes it super easy to find these types when they reloacte and rename.
This is a prime example of people abusing the system to do a cash-grab. Allegedly.
I had a company try to pull this once. Unfortunately for them, I had pictures of the horrible job they did as well as messages between the owner and me. Everything I posted about was true and they didn't have a leg to stand on. They threatened to sue me for "deformation" (yes, they spelled it wrong in the letter they sent me) and demanded I take down the review. I told the owner "If you don't like bad reviews, do a better job." That was the end of it. The review is still up and I never heard another word about it. This was about 6 years ago. Businesses that try to bully customers into removing truthful reviews do more damage by making a big deal of the review rather than trying to rectify situations. I hope this all works out in the customers' favor.
My relatives I'm Europe saw this story! Roofer company total scum!
I don’t care if you didn’t hire them personally but when you talk to like that by your business office manager, they deserve the review. They’re still talking to the public.
Seems to me, the company would have been MUCH better off providing actual customer service. Reprimand the office manager, offer these folks an apology and provide the information they requested to the landlord. Then go on about your literal business. Instead they’ve managed to piss off every person that has ever gotten bad customer service or values their freedom of speech. They chose the wrong battle.
Do you know that this roofing company actually threatened them all over again when they started a Gofundme page to help them pay for an attorney to defend themselves?
Executive Roof Services looks like a terrible company best avoided at all cost. Shady shady.
I guess the roofing company doesn’t remember what happened to Klear Gear
Hope the judge makes the Roofing co to paid that amount of money to the poor woman and her family and fire that awful lawyer.
all this drama instead of just answering the questions from the tenants whose lives this roof leakage affected
I wonder what kgw did when they got sent that bogus cease and desist letter and laughed their ass off.
This was two years ago. Looked them up and they are back. Hopefully with a different owner.