Kramer S Roofing

Write a Review303-393-0345

On July 17, 2012 Douglas County permit was issued for a re-roofing job by Kramer Roofing. The permit stipulated NO reuse of existing flashing. That work was subsequently completed and the permit closed out. On April 15, 2013, called Kramer Roofing and reported that my roof was leaking as evidenced by damaged interior drywall. Kramer Roofing was given three opportunities to execute a permanent repair (April 15, April 17, and April 26). Rather than permanently fixing the leak, Kramer Roofing attempted to caulk an existing gutter to the new roof line. Kramer Roofing gave a variety of excuses over a two week time frame on why the roof was leaking: nail had popped, gutters had been installed after roof installed (gutters were installed by home builder 11 years previous), drywall damage was from wind driven rain (not covered by warranty) and installation crew used a 99 cent tube of black caulking. After listening to all sorts of excuses hired a 3rd party to determine root cause of my leaking roof. The fact is Kramer Roofing did not remove an existing gutter to gain proper access to the existing roof line in order to install new flashing prior to re-roofing. After a section of suspect gutter was removed, existing flashing was damaged to the point that no protection against precipitation was possible due to through penetrations (nails and tears). Complete set of photos available upon request

On July 17, 2012 Douglas County permit was issued for a re-roofing job by Kramer Roofing. The permit stipulated NO reuse of existing flashing. That work was subsequently completed and the permit closed out. On April 15, 2013, called Kramer Roofing and reported that my roof was leaking as evidenced by damaged interior drywall. Kramer Roofing was given three opportunities to execute a permanent repair (April 15, April 17, and April 26). Rather than permanently fixing the leak, Kramer Roofing attempted to caulk an existing gutter to the new roof line. Kramer Roofing gave a variety of excuses over a two week time frame on why the roof was leaking: nail had popped, gutters had been installed after roof installed (gutters were installed by home builder 11 years previous), drywall damage was from wind driven rain (not covered by warranty) and installation crew used a 99 cent tube of black caulking. After listening to all sorts of excuses hired a 3rd party to determine root cause of my leaking roof. Fact is Kramer Roofing did not remove an existing gutter to gain proper access to the existing roof line in order to install new flashing prior to re-roofing (permit violation). After a section of suspect gutter was removed, found existing flashing was damaged to the point that no protection against precipitation was possible due to through penetrations (nails and tears). Complete set of photos available upon request

On July 17, 2012 Douglas County permit was issued for a re-roofing job by Kramer Roofing. The permit stipulated NO reuse of existing flashing. That work was subsequently completed and the permit closed out. On April 15, 2013, called Kramer Roofing and reported that my roof was leaking as evidenced by damaged interior drywall. Kramer Roofing was given three opportunities to execute a permanent repair (April 15, April 17, and April 26). Rather than permanently fixing the leak, Kramer Roofing attempted to caulk an existing gutter to the new roof line. Kramer Roofing gave a variety of excuses over a two week time frame on why the roof was leaking: nail had popped, gutters had been installed after roof installed (gutters were installed by home builder 11 years previous), drywall damage was from wind driven rain (not covered by warranty) and installation crew used a 99 cent tube of black caulking. After listening to all sorts of excuses hired a 3rd party to determine root cause of my leaking roof. Fact is Kramer Roofing did not remove an existing gutter to gain proper access to the existing roof line in order to install new flashing prior to re-roofing (permit violation). After a section of suspect gutter was removed, found existing flashing was damaged to the point that no protection against precipitation was possible due to through penetrations (nails and tears). Complete set of photos available upon request

On July 17, 2012 Douglas County permit was issued for a re-roofing job by Kramer Roofing. The permit stipulated NO reuse of existing flashing. That work was subsequently completed and the permit closed out. On April 15, 2003, called Kramer Roofing and reported that my roof was leaking as evidenced by damaged interior drywall. Kramer Roofing was given three opportunities to execute a permanent repair (April 15, April 17, and April 26). Rather than permanently fixing the leak, Kramer Roofing attempted to caulk an existing gutter to the new roof line. Kramer Roofing gave a variety of excuses over a two week time frame on why the roof was leaking: nail had popped, gutters had been installed after roof installed (gutters were installed by home builder 11 years previous), drywall damage was from wind driven rain (not covered by warranty) and installation crew used a 99 cent tube of black caulking. After listening to all sorts of excuses hired a 3rd party to determine root cause of my leaking roof. The fact is Kramer Roofing did not remove an existing gutter to gain proper access to the existing roof line in order to install new flashing prior to re-roofing. After a section of suspect gutter was removed, existing flashing was damaged to the point that no protection against precipitation was possible due to through penetrations (nails and tears). Complete set of photos available upon request

I couldn't have asked for a more speedy crew. Mark Kramer's guys were fast, efficient, courteous and clean. They didn't leave one spent shingle behind.The crew of five arrived at my house around 10 a.m. and by 6 p.m. they had stripped the roof of my 3,100 sq. ft. home and replaced the roof. The gutter guys came the next day and took about three hours to replace the gutters. When the job was done Lisa Kramer, Mark's beautiful wife, called the city to arrange for the inspection. All I had to do was write the check.I've had lots of dealings with contractors and the like, but Mark Kramer and his crew were the best. I highly recommend them.

I couldn't have asked for a more professional, fast, courteous and clean crew.Mark Kramer's crew got to my house about 10 a.m. and by 6 p.m. they had stripped the roof of my 3,100-sq. ft home and had a new roof on. The gutter guys came the next day and only took 3 hours to put the gutters on.If you need a new roof I highly recommend Mark Kramer and his crew. They are the best.