Residents say Window Depot and All Weather Roofing scammed customers; council asks attorney to review

Multiple Mobile homeowners on Tuesday accused local operators using the Window Depot and All Weather Roofing names of taking large deposits and failing to provide contracted services, and asked the Mobile City Council to consider revoking local business licenses and otherwise helping recover funds.

"I personally was victimized for $4,080," Margaret Nichols told the council during public comment, saying she represents a victims' group that has documented 54 members and $491,992.84 in known damages. "These 54 members have been scammed, defrauded, and misrepresented by these two companies," she said.

Why it matters: Speakers described repeated patterns of delayed work, little or no communication and companies ceasing operations while customers still owed goods or services. Several residents said they had filed complaints with state and local authorities and that some households face significant financial hardship if refunds are not recovered.

Dakota Bilbury, who said she paid $11,000 on March 9 for a full-window order with a stated 10–14 week turnaround, told council members she had not received an update and that phone calls produced only messages. "I'm a customer who has paid for their order in full, and I'm not receiving any kind of transparent answer," she said.

Barbara McCleskkey (spelled as recorded) described paying a $4,569 deposit in October 2025 and said the company later "ceased operations, leaving customers without products and services they paid for." She told the council she had filed complaints with the Alabama Attorney General's Office, the district attorney and Mobile Police Department, and had contacted corporate franchise representatives with no substantive response.

Council response and next steps: Council President CJ Small thanked the speakers and said he would "ask our council attorney to look into this matter further and advise this council on what steps that you recommend for us to take in the near future." Multiple council members noted that franchise structures complicate local remedies but confirmed that local business licensing is a municipal lever the council can examine.

What the record shows: Complainants told the council they had filed consumer complaints with the Alabama Attorney General and reported their cases to MPD and the district attorney. Council members and staff described coordination with investigating agencies; no formal revocation or other council action was recorded at the meeting.

Claims and responses in the meeting: Council members asked whether complainants had contacted franchise headquarters; victims said they had emailed corporate contacts and had received little or no meaningful response. The council directed its attorney to review the city's authority and advise on next steps.

What remains unresolved: The council did not vote on revocation of any license at the meeting. The scope of any municipal action, potential refunds or criminal findings will depend on investigations by MPD, the district attorney and the Alabama Attorney General's Office.

Ending note: Council members repeatedly urged residents to share documentation with investigators and provided contact information for consumer-affairs resources. The council said it will await the attorney's advice before taking further municipal action.