Victims tell Mobile council they lost more than $1 million to Window Depot, All Weather; council hears call to revoke licenses

Dozens of Mobile residents told the City Council on July 14 that they paid deposits to Window Depot of Mobile and All Weather Roofing and never received the promised work, and they urged the council to revoke any remaining business licenses and tighten consumer protections.

The most detailed testimony came from Eric Nelson, who told the council he served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine and said, “I, along with more than 100 other local victims, have lost over 1,000,000 in deposits to Window Depot and All Weather Roofing of Mobile.” Katie Morrison, a District 5 resident who said she represents more than 100 victims, said the group has filed police reports and asked the council to “revok[e] these business licenses” and prevent the owners from obtaining future licenses.

Why it matters: Council action could prevent the companies from operating in Mobile again, but revoking a city license is a separate administrative step from any criminal prosecution. The public hearing brought victims’ accounts into the record and signaled strong community pressure for a city response.

Council members told speakers the city had acted promptly to place the item on the agenda and that investigators are identifying victims. The public safety representative said the police department had identified approximately 108 victims at the time of the meeting and that the total loss figure was being updated; Morrison said the consumer losses the group had documented exceeded $1,000,000.

Several residents described similar patterns: large upfront deposits, repeated promises of delivery, and little or no follow‑up. Eric Nelson said that after attempts to get refunds failed, he and other victims pursued public demonstrations and formal complaints. Katie Morrison told the council she paid nearly $10,000 and that she only learned, through her attorney and contact with the manufacturer, that no order had been placed in her name.

Council procedure and next steps: Council members emphasized that the license‑revocation process requires a separate administrative record and that staff would present evidence and witnesses where appropriate before a formal revocation vote. A council member noted that revocation was not on today’s agenda for a final vote; the city’s revenue and legal staff and criminal investigators will continue fact‑finding and may present testimony at a later meeting for council action.

City officials said they are coordinating with investigators. The public safety representative told the council that police continue to identify victims and that the investigation is active. Council members also discussed the limits of municipal authority and the potential need for state legislative changes to strengthen consumer protections.

The hearing closed after public testimony; no final revocation of licenses was adopted at the July 14 meeting.

What’s next: Staff indicated they will compile evidence and testimony for the council’s later consideration and that criminal investigators remain engaged.