Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Terry Hendriksen <br />15631 Ramsey Blvd. NW <br />Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 <br /> <br />William K. Goodrich <br />Randall, Dehn & Goodrich <br />2140 Fourth Avenue North, <br />Anoka, Minnesota 55303 <br /> <br />Re: Stock Roofing Company v. Hendriksen v. Warren Swck, Case # 02-CV-07-165 <br /> <br />Amicus Public Interest Dimension of City in Roofinl! Contractor Conduct <br /> <br />Dear Bill: <br /> <br />As I explained, I will be talcing an appeal of dismissal by Judge Stephen Askew of a <br />counterclaim and third party claim of consumer fraud on the part of a roofing firm and its <br />qualifYing person and President. The underlying litigation is for negligent workmanship, <br />dodging inspections, ignoring Commerce Department Rules, shingling over rotten wood, <br />and replacing a workable but storm damaged roof with O;le leaking profusely, damaging <br />my homes interior. <br /> <br />Lana Howell reviewed the firm's records in Ramsey and provided an affidavit that the <br />firm has installed twenty-two roofs in Ramsey having only two inspections. Over 90% of <br />the roofs installed by this contractor in Ramsey went un-inspected. The firm has a similar <br />(80%) no inspection rate in Elk River. <br /> <br />There is no doubt that had my roof been inspected there would have been a long list of <br />corrections required. One can only assume other defects would likely have been found on <br />the remaining un-inspected roof. <br /> <br />I have been told by Mick Kaehler, Building Official, that that crews are often brought in <br />from out of state to handle peak storm damage demand, without knowing local code and <br />being inadequately supervised. This often results in faulty work that is very difficult to <br />monitor especially when the contractor might prefer to avoid inspection. All of these <br />factors exist in my case and have resulted in significant damage to the interior of my <br />home. <br /> <br />I request as a matter of public concern that the City consider submitting a limited amicus <br />brief following my notice of appeal. The Amicus Brief I'm requesting would focus on the <br />public interest and public impact of contractor indifference to UBC code and inspection <br />requirem.ents. The city's general policy aim of having voluntary compliance to promote <br />sound housing throughout the community. Also the public interest aspect of having . <br />licensed contractors follow commerce department consumer protection rules without the <br />need to impose costly draconian inspection and enforcement tactics. <br /> <br />-22- <br />