Overflow Roofing

Strongly do not recommend Overflow Roofing. Proceed with extreme caution.

This review is based entirely on my own experience, the documented history of my job, and matters that were subsequently addressed through the SAT process.

I hired Overflow Roofing in 2024 to carry out roof and gutter repairs at my property in Harvey, WA. I was interstate and could not attend the property myself, so I provided the business owner with the building inspection report and specifically asked for the roofing issues identified in that report to be addressed. I also asked the business owner to inspect the property personally and include any additional roofing issues identified in the quotation.

The property was inspected, a quotation was provided, and I was subsequently told that the quoted work had been completed. Relying on that representation, I paid the invoice in full — Invoice #268 for $8,222.50.

Only a small number of photographs were initially provided. I was told that additional photographs would be provided when the business owner was next passing the property. Despite repeated follow-ups, I never received the full photographic record.

In 2025, a friend inspected the property and discovered that a significant area at the front of the roof — the front valley — had not been completed. The photographs showed missing roof tiles, no fascia, no eave, no gutter, and timber truss exposed directly to the elements.

This was particularly concerning because this area had already been identified in the original building inspection report that I had provided before the work commenced.

At no stage before payment was I told that this work was excluded from the quotation, that it could not be completed, or that the area would be left unfinished. When I raised the issue, I did not receive a satisfactory explanation or rectification. Instead, I was told at different times that the area was part of the roof's “design” and that the quoted work had been completed.

I subsequently had no choice but to engage another roofer to inspect and rectify the outstanding work, at an additional cost of approximately $3,000.

The second roofer also identified further issues. The downpipe at the carport patio roof, which I had been charged for, had not actually been installed. Without the downpipe, water from the gutter had no proper discharge and was accumulating and flowing into the side shed area. The second roofer installed the missing downpipe.

He also identified a loose section of rear carport gutter that had not been repaired, as well as significant debris, grass and leaves remaining in the gutters, as shown in the photographs. The gutters had not been properly cleaned as part of the completed works I had paid for.

The matter subsequently went through the SAT process. During that process, the business owner acknowledged that the carport patio downpipe had not been installed and agreed to refund the amount charged for that work. SAT then made an order requiring the payment.

I provided my bank details so the refund could be made. However, the refund was not received within the timeframe specified in the SAT order. As at the date of this review, I still have not received the refund.

I subsequently contacted the business owner to follow up on the outstanding payment. My question was not addressed. Instead, I was told not to contact the business owner about the matter again.

For me, this is particularly concerning because this is not simply a disagreement about workmanship or a difference of opinion. There was an identified item of work that I had paid for but which had not been completed, this was subsequently acknowledged during the SAT process, a refund was agreed to, and SAT then made an order requiring payment — yet the refund remains outstanding.

To be very clear, this review is not based on hearsay, assumptions or someone else's experience. These are issues I personally experienced after paying for the work, supported by the building inspection report, photographs, the subsequent roofer's inspection and rectification work, and the SAT process.

I cannot comment on other customers' experiences or the positive reviews they have left. I can only speak about my own experience.

Based on my experience, I would definitely not hire Overflow Roofing again, and I would not recommend this business to my family, friends or anyone who is unable to personally supervise the work. If you are considering using this business, I strongly recommend independently verifying every item you have paid for before making final payment, obtaining comprehensive photographic evidence of the completed work, and making sure any outstanding issues are properly resolved in writing.

My experience has left me with serious concerns about the way this job was handled from completion of the quoted works through to the unresolved refund. I would strongly urge anyone considering using Overflow Roofing to exercise extreme caution and conduct their own independent checks before making payment.