Roof Rats
2.4|24 reviews
RD
Rustum D
1 reviews | Active since Member
23 Feb 2026, 18:15
Roof Rats Roof Cleaning Service — Serious Dust Contamination and Unprofessional Conduct
am compelled to formally record my deep concern and disappointment regarding the workmanship and site practices during Roof Rats’ recent roof cleaning, ceiling vacuuming and insulation-related service at my property.
Prior to commencement, I was assured the team would operate professionally through the trapdoor with proper containment. However, during the roof space cleaning and ceiling vacuuming process, the team exited the ceiling with torn and broken vacuum bags, resulting in widespread dust contamination throughout my home.
Dust has settled extensively across floors, fabric furniture, electronics, appliances, walls, utensils, and my home office workspace. This has materially disrupted my ability to work from home and has raised legitimate health concerns — particularly given that the property contains asbestos ceilings, where careful dust control is non-negotiable.
Of further concern, portions of the asbestos ceiling appear to have been stepped through during the process, increasing the risk profile and reinforcing the need for proper asbestos-aware work practices.
During this roof cleaning and ceiling cleaning service, the following critical concerns were observed:
No respirators were worn by the team
A standard (non-HEPA) shop vacuum was used for ceiling vacuuming
Dust visibly escaped through the trapdoor into the living space
Workers moved through the home while covered in dust
Bags were not properly sealed prior to removal from the roof space
A team member was observed handling personal belongings on my front porch and inspecting my bin
In any professional ceiling repairs, ceiling vacuuming, insulation, pest control, exterior cleaning, gutter cleaning, gutter guards installation, roof painting, roof security or waterproofing environment, these basic containment failures fall materially below the standard of reasonable care and skill expected from a specialist roof and cleaning service provider.
Customer Engagement Concern
Equally concerning is the handling of this matter after it was formally raised. I submitted a detailed email and attempted telephonic contact via the listed landline; however, both the landline and emails went unanswered for the entire day.
During this period, the business owner remained actively posting on social media. My factual comment on the company’s Facebook page outlining my experience was deleted, and I was subsequently blocked. Public-facing statements were then made implying the matter had been resolved — which is factually incorrect.
In addition, Google Reviews appear to be disabled for the business, which materially restricts normal customer feedback channels.
From a customer service and accountability standpoint, active reputation management while a live service complaint remains unresolved raises legitimate concern.
Context Regarding Public Reputation
Public reporting previously highlighted Roof Rats as an award-winning roof cleaning company recognised for its “innovative and customer-focused approach” and “high level of professionalism and serious commitment to customer satisfaction.” ()
It is precisely because of this publicly stated standard that the current experience is so concerning and appears materially inconsistent with the level of service excellence historically associated with the brand.
Requested Resolution
In the spirit of fair and professional resolution — and given that my property was left in a contaminated state and my own equipment was ultimately used when the on-site vacuum proved not to be HEPA-rated as expected — my preferred resolution is:
A full refund for the roof/ceiling cleaning service
Professional deep cleaning of all affected fabric furniture
Professional cleaning of walls in all impacted areas
Careful external cleaning of electronics and household utensils
A formal proposal for the safe removal of the existing asbestos ceiling and replacement with a compliant new ceiling installation
I remain fully open to resolving this matter constructively and without escalation. However, the urgency of addressing the contamination and customer care concerns cannot be overstated.
The most equitable outcome at this stage is a prompt, professional resolution that restores confidence. Continued delay or attempts to manage public perception without substantively addressing the underlying service failures will inevitably shape the view of informed observers.
I trust Roof Rats will choose the path of professional accountability and bring this matter to a fair conclusion.
Helpful (0)
Replies (53)0
Replies (53)RD
Rustum D's updateReviewer Update
16 Mar 2026, 07:01Update – Timeline Since Original Review
Since my original review regarding Roof Rats, I have made several attempts to resolve the matter directly with the company and its owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
16 February 2026
Roof Rats confirmed a booking for roof space cleaning and insulation work at my property.
23 February 2026
Their team attended and carried out the work. During the job: • a worker stepped through the ceiling in the front room
• dust from the roof space migrated into the living areas
• my Genesis vacuum cleaner was handled by the team
I also observed a worker going through belongings on my front porch and looking inside my bin. This was reported to the company immediately.
23–27 February 2026 I sent several emails to Roof Rats and owner Diederik van ’t Hof, providing: • photographs
• CCTV footage
• video recordings
The company acknowledged the ceiling breach but disputed other issues and did not provide the requested information regarding their cleaning process and equipment.
Late February – Early March Insulation materials remained stored in the passage of my home for approximately two weeks while the matter remained unresolved. Because the ceiling damage delayed my renovation project, I eventually arranged the repair myself.
5 March 2026 After repeated attempts to resolve the matter, I issued a formal Letter of Demand to Diederik van ’t Hof proposing a reasonable settlement. To date no response has been received. The matter is now being escalated through the appropriate consumer channels.
Another difficulty in resolving the matter has been the way communication was handled. Most correspondence from Roof Rats came through Janice, a staff member rather than directly from the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
Despite the seriousness of the issues raised, Mr. van ’t Hof declined to engage directly for most of the process. The only occasions where he personally entered the discussion were an early response and a later email in which he expressed strong objection to the allegations regarding staff conduct and demanded that certain statements be withdrawn before any further discussion could proceed. As a result, the substantive issues — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were never meaningfully addressed by the company’s owner despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter.
Pattern of Non-Engagement and Mischaracterisation
Throughout the course of this dispute, a clear pattern developed in the way the supplier communicated and responded to the issues raised.
1. Limited Direct Engagement from the Owner Most correspondence from Roof Rats was conducted through administrative staff rather than the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof. Despite the seriousness of the issues raised — including property damage, dust contamination within the home, and damage to personal equipment — Mr. van ’t Hof did not engage directly during the earlier stages of the dispute. The only time he personally entered the correspondence was at the tail end of the communication, where his response focused primarily on objecting to allegations made regarding the conduct of his staff. Outside of that response, the substantive issues raised — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were not addressed directly by the owner.
2. Focus on Defending Staff Rather Than Addressing the Incident When the owner did respond personally, the focus of the communication was not on addressing the documented issues that had occurred during the work. Instead, the primary focus was on objecting to statements regarding staff conduct and demanding that those statements be withdrawn before further engagement could occur. As a result, the underlying service issues remained unresolved.
3. Pattern of Mischaracterisation During the course of the correspondence, several assertions were made by the supplier that were inconsistent with the available evidence. Examples include statements suggesting: • that the house was already dusty prior to the work being carried out
• that the dust contamination observed could not have occurred through the methods used by the team
• that the vacuum cleaner had not been exposed to water Each of these statements was addressed and corrected through documented evidence including: • CCTV / surveillance footage
• photographs
• video recordings
• chronological documentation of events.
4. Lack of Accountability When Statements Were Corrected Despite the presentation of evidence contradicting these assertions, no acknowledgement, correction, or apology was provided. Instead, the pattern observed was:
5. Failure to Engage After Formal Notice After repeated attempts to resolve the matter informally, a formal Letter of Demand dated 5 March 2026 was issued outlining the documented losses and proposing a reasonable commercial settlement. To date, no response has been received
The dispute could likely have been resolved early had the supplier engaged directly with the factual issues raised. Instead, the combination of: • limited engagement from the owner
• mischaracterisation of events
• failure to acknowledge evidence when presented
• absence of corrective action
has resulted in the matter progressing to formal escalation.
Since my original review regarding Roof Rats, I have made several attempts to resolve the matter directly with the company and its owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
16 February 2026
Roof Rats confirmed a booking for roof space cleaning and insulation work at my property.
23 February 2026
Their team attended and carried out the work. During the job: • a worker stepped through the ceiling in the front room
• dust from the roof space migrated into the living areas
• my Genesis vacuum cleaner was handled by the team
I also observed a worker going through belongings on my front porch and looking inside my bin. This was reported to the company immediately.
23–27 February 2026 I sent several emails to Roof Rats and owner Diederik van ’t Hof, providing: • photographs
• CCTV footage
• video recordings
The company acknowledged the ceiling breach but disputed other issues and did not provide the requested information regarding their cleaning process and equipment.
Late February – Early March Insulation materials remained stored in the passage of my home for approximately two weeks while the matter remained unresolved. Because the ceiling damage delayed my renovation project, I eventually arranged the repair myself.
5 March 2026 After repeated attempts to resolve the matter, I issued a formal Letter of Demand to Diederik van ’t Hof proposing a reasonable settlement. To date no response has been received. The matter is now being escalated through the appropriate consumer channels.
Another difficulty in resolving the matter has been the way communication was handled. Most correspondence from Roof Rats came through Janice, a staff member rather than directly from the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
Despite the seriousness of the issues raised, Mr. van ’t Hof declined to engage directly for most of the process. The only occasions where he personally entered the discussion were an early response and a later email in which he expressed strong objection to the allegations regarding staff conduct and demanded that certain statements be withdrawn before any further discussion could proceed. As a result, the substantive issues — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were never meaningfully addressed by the company’s owner despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter.
Pattern of Non-Engagement and Mischaracterisation
Throughout the course of this dispute, a clear pattern developed in the way the supplier communicated and responded to the issues raised.
1. Limited Direct Engagement from the Owner Most correspondence from Roof Rats was conducted through administrative staff rather than the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof. Despite the seriousness of the issues raised — including property damage, dust contamination within the home, and damage to personal equipment — Mr. van ’t Hof did not engage directly during the earlier stages of the dispute. The only time he personally entered the correspondence was at the tail end of the communication, where his response focused primarily on objecting to allegations made regarding the conduct of his staff. Outside of that response, the substantive issues raised — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were not addressed directly by the owner.
2. Focus on Defending Staff Rather Than Addressing the Incident When the owner did respond personally, the focus of the communication was not on addressing the documented issues that had occurred during the work. Instead, the primary focus was on objecting to statements regarding staff conduct and demanding that those statements be withdrawn before further engagement could occur. As a result, the underlying service issues remained unresolved.
3. Pattern of Mischaracterisation During the course of the correspondence, several assertions were made by the supplier that were inconsistent with the available evidence. Examples include statements suggesting: • that the house was already dusty prior to the work being carried out
• that the dust contamination observed could not have occurred through the methods used by the team
• that the vacuum cleaner had not been exposed to water Each of these statements was addressed and corrected through documented evidence including: • CCTV / surveillance footage
• photographs
• video recordings
• chronological documentation of events.
4. Lack of Accountability When Statements Were Corrected Despite the presentation of evidence contradicting these assertions, no acknowledgement, correction, or apology was provided. Instead, the pattern observed was:
- a statement being made by the supplier,
- the statement being contradicted by documented evidence, and
- the discussion then shifting to another issue without addressing the original statement.
5. Failure to Engage After Formal Notice After repeated attempts to resolve the matter informally, a formal Letter of Demand dated 5 March 2026 was issued outlining the documented losses and proposing a reasonable commercial settlement. To date, no response has been received
The dispute could likely have been resolved early had the supplier engaged directly with the factual issues raised. Instead, the combination of: • limited engagement from the owner
• mischaracterisation of events
• failure to acknowledge evidence when presented
• absence of corrective action
has resulted in the matter progressing to formal escalation.
RD
Rustum D's update16 Mar 2026, 07:01
Reviewer Update
Update – Timeline Since Original Review
Since my original review regarding Roof Rats, I have made several attempts to resolve the matter directly with the company and its owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
16 February 2026
Roof Rats confirmed a booking for roof space cleaning and insulation work at my property.
23 February 2026
Their team attended and carried out the work. During the job: • a worker stepped through the ceiling in the front room
• dust from the roof space migrated into the living areas
• my Genesis vacuum cleaner was handled by the team
I also observed a worker going through belongings on my front porch and looking inside my bin. This was reported to the company immediately.
23–27 February 2026 I sent several emails to Roof Rats and owner Diederik van ’t Hof, providing: • photographs
• CCTV footage
• video recordings
The company acknowledged the ceiling breach but disputed other issues and did not provide the requested information regarding their cleaning process and equipment.
Late February – Early March Insulation materials remained stored in the passage of my home for approximately two weeks while the matter remained unresolved. Because the ceiling damage delayed my renovation project, I eventually arranged the repair myself.
5 March 2026 After repeated attempts to resolve the matter, I issued a formal Letter of Demand to Diederik van ’t Hof proposing a reasonable settlement. To date no response has been received. The matter is now being escalated through the appropriate consumer channels.
Another difficulty in resolving the matter has been the way communication was handled. Most correspondence from Roof Rats came through Janice, a staff member rather than directly from the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
Despite the seriousness of the issues raised, Mr. van ’t Hof declined to engage directly for most of the process. The only occasions where he personally entered the discussion were an early response and a later email in which he expressed strong objection to the allegations regarding staff conduct and demanded that certain statements be withdrawn before any further discussion could proceed. As a result, the substantive issues — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were never meaningfully addressed by the company’s owner despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter.
Pattern of Non-Engagement and Mischaracterisation
Throughout the course of this dispute, a clear pattern developed in the way the supplier communicated and responded to the issues raised.
1. Limited Direct Engagement from the Owner Most correspondence from Roof Rats was conducted through administrative staff rather than the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof. Despite the seriousness of the issues raised — including property damage, dust contamination within the home, and damage to personal equipment — Mr. van ’t Hof did not engage directly during the earlier stages of the dispute. The only time he personally entered the correspondence was at the tail end of the communication, where his response focused primarily on objecting to allegations made regarding the conduct of his staff. Outside of that response, the substantive issues raised — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were not addressed directly by the owner.
2. Focus on Defending Staff Rather Than Addressing the Incident When the owner did respond personally, the focus of the communication was not on addressing the documented issues that had occurred during the work. Instead, the primary focus was on objecting to statements regarding staff conduct and demanding that those statements be withdrawn before further engagement could occur. As a result, the underlying service issues remained unresolved.
3. Pattern of Mischaracterisation During the course of the correspondence, several assertions were made by the supplier that were inconsistent with the available evidence. Examples include statements suggesting: • that the house was already dusty prior to the work being carried out
• that the dust contamination observed could not have occurred through the methods used by the team
• that the vacuum cleaner had not been exposed to water Each of these statements was addressed and corrected through documented evidence including: • CCTV / surveillance footage
• photographs
• video recordings
• chronological documentation of events.
4. Lack of Accountability When Statements Were Corrected Despite the presentation of evidence contradicting these assertions, no acknowledgement, correction, or apology was provided. Instead, the pattern observed was:
5. Failure to Engage After Formal Notice After repeated attempts to resolve the matter informally, a formal Letter of Demand dated 5 March 2026 was issued outlining the documented losses and proposing a reasonable commercial settlement. To date, no response has been received
The dispute could likely have been resolved early had the supplier engaged directly with the factual issues raised. Instead, the combination of: • limited engagement from the owner
• mischaracterisation of events
• failure to acknowledge evidence when presented
• absence of corrective action
has resulted in the matter progressing to formal escalation.
Since my original review regarding Roof Rats, I have made several attempts to resolve the matter directly with the company and its owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
16 February 2026
Roof Rats confirmed a booking for roof space cleaning and insulation work at my property.
23 February 2026
Their team attended and carried out the work. During the job: • a worker stepped through the ceiling in the front room
• dust from the roof space migrated into the living areas
• my Genesis vacuum cleaner was handled by the team
I also observed a worker going through belongings on my front porch and looking inside my bin. This was reported to the company immediately.
23–27 February 2026 I sent several emails to Roof Rats and owner Diederik van ’t Hof, providing: • photographs
• CCTV footage
• video recordings
The company acknowledged the ceiling breach but disputed other issues and did not provide the requested information regarding their cleaning process and equipment.
Late February – Early March Insulation materials remained stored in the passage of my home for approximately two weeks while the matter remained unresolved. Because the ceiling damage delayed my renovation project, I eventually arranged the repair myself.
5 March 2026 After repeated attempts to resolve the matter, I issued a formal Letter of Demand to Diederik van ’t Hof proposing a reasonable settlement. To date no response has been received. The matter is now being escalated through the appropriate consumer channels.
Another difficulty in resolving the matter has been the way communication was handled. Most correspondence from Roof Rats came through Janice, a staff member rather than directly from the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof.
Despite the seriousness of the issues raised, Mr. van ’t Hof declined to engage directly for most of the process. The only occasions where he personally entered the discussion were an early response and a later email in which he expressed strong objection to the allegations regarding staff conduct and demanded that certain statements be withdrawn before any further discussion could proceed. As a result, the substantive issues — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were never meaningfully addressed by the company’s owner despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter.
Pattern of Non-Engagement and Mischaracterisation
Throughout the course of this dispute, a clear pattern developed in the way the supplier communicated and responded to the issues raised.
1. Limited Direct Engagement from the Owner Most correspondence from Roof Rats was conducted through administrative staff rather than the owner, Diederik van ’t Hof. Despite the seriousness of the issues raised — including property damage, dust contamination within the home, and damage to personal equipment — Mr. van ’t Hof did not engage directly during the earlier stages of the dispute. The only time he personally entered the correspondence was at the tail end of the communication, where his response focused primarily on objecting to allegations made regarding the conduct of his staff. Outside of that response, the substantive issues raised — including the ceiling breach, contamination concerns, and equipment damage — were not addressed directly by the owner.
2. Focus on Defending Staff Rather Than Addressing the Incident When the owner did respond personally, the focus of the communication was not on addressing the documented issues that had occurred during the work. Instead, the primary focus was on objecting to statements regarding staff conduct and demanding that those statements be withdrawn before further engagement could occur. As a result, the underlying service issues remained unresolved.
3. Pattern of Mischaracterisation During the course of the correspondence, several assertions were made by the supplier that were inconsistent with the available evidence. Examples include statements suggesting: • that the house was already dusty prior to the work being carried out
• that the dust contamination observed could not have occurred through the methods used by the team
• that the vacuum cleaner had not been exposed to water Each of these statements was addressed and corrected through documented evidence including: • CCTV / surveillance footage
• photographs
• video recordings
• chronological documentation of events.
4. Lack of Accountability When Statements Were Corrected Despite the presentation of evidence contradicting these assertions, no acknowledgement, correction, or apology was provided. Instead, the pattern observed was:
- a statement being made by the supplier,
- the statement being contradicted by documented evidence, and
- the discussion then shifting to another issue without addressing the original statement.
5. Failure to Engage After Formal Notice After repeated attempts to resolve the matter informally, a formal Letter of Demand dated 5 March 2026 was issued outlining the documented losses and proposing a reasonable commercial settlement. To date, no response has been received
The dispute could likely have been resolved early had the supplier engaged directly with the factual issues raised. Instead, the combination of: • limited engagement from the owner
• mischaracterisation of events
• failure to acknowledge evidence when presented
• absence of corrective action
has resulted in the matter progressing to formal escalation.