TL;DR
Finish quality was rough, seams and vents had heavy…read moreadhesive buildup, and several areas now collect rainwater -- and these concerns were never addressed. On top of that, the contract copy arrived 5 days late after a $2,000 deposit, the office initially had no record of our project, the written contract didn't match what we were told, and the job required three visits -- which altogether felt very unprofessional for a $6,000 repair.
-
We recently hired Guardian Roofing to repair a roof leak above our dining room. The inspection took place the week before Thanksgiving, and the repair itself was carried out on Thanksgiving Day. We genuinely appreciated that the crew was willing to work over a holiday. However, the weeks that followed involved multiple return visits and repeated attempts on our part to resolve concerns privately. Because these issues remained unresolved for nearly a month, we felt it was important to share our experience for future customers.
Because water was actively leaking into our home, we moved forward quickly after the salesperson explained that the job would include replacing the roof plywood and installing a gutter downspout extension. We paid a $2,000 deposit that same day. Although the contract was signed electronically, we did not receive a copy for five days, despite being told it would be sent immediately. During that time, the salesperson became unresponsive -- and when we contacted the company office to follow up, they initially had no record that we had signed a contract or paid a deposit. That was extremely concerning given the urgency of the situation.
After the repair was completed, we finally received the written contract -- and only then realized that it did not match what we had been told. The gutter extension was not included in the document, and the plywood had only been partially replaced, even though we had understood the replacement would cover the full section. When we raised these discrepancies, we were told that the company had simply followed the wording of the contract. Only after further discussion, including acknowledgment of what the original salesperson had described, did the company agree to install the gutter extension at no additional cost. Still, for a $6,000 repair, the overall process felt disorganized and unclear.
The job ultimately required three visits: the initial torch-down installation, a later trip to add the omitted gutter extension, and then another visit to secure that extension after it was installed too loosely. Even after all of this, our original concerns about finishing quality and water pooling were never addressed.
These concerns were not just about appearance. This section of the roof is clearly visible from our upstairs rooms and yard, and even neighbors who can see it commented that the work looked surprisingly rough for a professional installation. The seams and vent patches were left with heavy, uneven adhesive buildup, and in several areas rainwater now collects instead of draining properly.
When we raised these issues, we were told that the work met company standards and, in their words, "we are not decorators." The conversation repeatedly shifted toward explaining the nature of torch-down roofing -- as if the outcome were simply inherent to the system -- rather than addressing the quality of the execution itself.
What made the experience particularly difficult was feeling that our urgency and lack of technical knowledge were not met with clear guidance and follow-through, but instead left us to discover contractual and workmanship issues only after the fact.
In the end, the combination of delayed documentation, unclear expectations, inconsistent internal awareness of our project, multiple return visits, and workmanship that appeared unfinished left us disappointed and concerned as customers. We hope this review helps other homeowners make informed decisions and encourages greater clarity, accountability, and care in both communication and work quality going forward.
