Cal Pro Home Inspection

Review: This complaint against Cal Pro Home Inspections is related to and linked to another complaint filed against [redacted] (case [redacted] was representing me AND the Seller in a Real Estate transaction wherein I was the Buyer. [redacted] selected a Cal Pro Home Inspections as the company to complete an inspection of the property and provide a report that would allow me to evaluate the property in relation to price and negotiate correction of defects found.Cal Pro conducted the inspection and reported a list of 20+ deficiencies for negotiation. Cal Pro insists that they went into the attic and inspected the duct work. They reported it as serviceable and in good condition. Cal Pro also identified that the HVAC in the house did not work. Unfortunately Cal Pro could not have gone into the attic simply because the duct work was completely dysfunctional and one of the vents to deliver air and heat was blocked in the attic with wood and sheet rocked over in the bedroom. This in violation of California Residential Code.[redacted] worked to conceal the fact that the AC Compressor failure to operate was actually due to the dysfunctional duct installation. As a result of this 'failure to perform' by Cal Pro and apparent defect concealment by [redacted] I was forced to pay $5,000 to make the HVAC functional (there was no actual problem with the Compressor) by replacing all duct work. I also had to have another Home Inspection Company re-inspect the attic and take photographs of the dysfunctional ductwork and have the City of Roseville inspect, which confirmed the duct issues and blocked vent to my Grandsons Bedroom.I have filed a complaint with the CA Real Estate Bureau and will be following up with legal action against the Seller ([redacted]), [redacted] and it's Agents and Cal Pro Home Inspections.Since [redacted] selected Cal Pro (I had no reason to object)I do not know what discussions might have taken place between principalsDesired Settlement: Inasmuch as the duct problem was concealed/not identified and [redacted] concealed that the AC Compressor was NOT repaired and WOULD fail all parties are culpable for a refund of the $5,000.00, the inspection fee of $495.00 and the re-inspection fee of $495.00 that was necessary to document with many photos. Cal Pro has already acknowledged the their failure and has indicated a desire to arbitrate compensation for their failure. Seller and [redacted] have denied any culpability

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted]’s complaint regarding

the defective ducts is beyond the scope of our inspection. The ducts in the

home performed properly at the time of our visual inspection and showed no

signs of defects. Ducts are concealed in the attic and only a small percentage

is visible. Without performing a leak or pressure test it is impossible to

identify air leaks and disconnected ducts during a visual inspection unless the

defects are readily visible. During a visual home inspection, the inspector

will not move insulation or ducts to identify problems as it can cause damage

to the ducts or change the thermal resistance value of the insulation. As home

inspectors, we can only identify defects that we can see and inspect. Mr. [redacted]

is aware of this as we provided him with all documents pertaining to the limitations, exceptions and exclusions

set forth by our inspection association ([redacted]). Our association standards

and contract clearly states that the inspection is only a visual evaluation and

inspector will not remove or relocate any item in the home. We go above and

beyond our inspection standards to identify defects but what we cannot see and

inspect is beyond our control, such as hidden defects in ducts.

Per our contract, we offered

to return to the property to re-inspect the ducts but Mr. [redacted] had already

replaced the ducts.

We personally met with Mr.

[redacted] to discuss this matter but we have not yet reached a mutual agreement. We

are now in the process of mediation to determine the outcome of this situation.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: [redacted] himself looked at the photos provided by two (2) licensed contractors and a City of Roseville building inspector and none of the three moved any ducting and were able to take graphic photographs showing the defective ducting. [redacted] has seen those photos and commented that 'I can't believe I missed that'; thereby admitting that he was at fault for not reporting the defects. [redacted] provided photos of many if not all of the items (other than ducting) and had every opportunity to take photographs. He did not either because he did not go into the attic or because he was convinced (some how) that he should not or need not do a complete inspection. When I met with [redacted] he actually offered the defense that "someone may have gone into the attic and created the defect situation AFTER he did a thorough and complete inspection. Really? Who would do that? The Seller? The Real Estate Agents? Myself? [redacted] himself?. Even [redacted] rejected this excuse as ridicules.[redacted] has not agreed to arbitrate or mediate, but did wend me a letter saying that his Association has seen the complaint and recommended to him ([redacted]) that he mediate. They made that recommendation simply because they know that [redacted] failed in his inspection responsibilities and very likely did not even inspect by ducts (either by omission or by intent). [redacted] was selected by the Real Estate Agent for the inspection. I had no reason to object simply because I had not way of knowing that [redacted] was this incompetent or devious (if that is what the BRE investigation determines.[redacted] did not offer to re-inspect the duct work. In fact I offered him that opportunity but he was unable to because he was leaving for Denver (I believe it was Denver). My son and Grandson were living in a home that was routinely 95 degrees + and I could not wait for [redacted] to be available (perhaps he was unavailable because he knew he either did not inspect or falsified the report). To protect myself and [redacted] I (at my expense) hired a second contractor/inspector ([redacted] Construction) to re-inspect the attic. Mr. [redacted] inspected and took graphic photographs of the dysfunctional duct work and provided me with a report. Mr. [redacted] concluded and advised that no competent inspector could have inspected the duct work and written the report indicating there was no problem. Further I had the City of Roseville inspector building Department send an inspector to inspect as another independent source. That inspector confirmed that the duct work was defective/dysfunctional and also that parts of the installation were in violation of the California Building Code because the duct and air vent that would have provided air to my Grandson's room was blocked off in the attic (not concealed to open view) and the ceiling in the bedroom was sheet rocked over and painted.This attempt by [redacted] (deny and mediate) is simply an attempt on his part to blunt the impact of my advising him that I would bundle this complaint with complaint to the BRE regarding the seller and Real Estate Agents attempt to conceal a broader HVAC failure (compressor that did not and would not function). The reason the Compressor would not function is because of the defective duct work. Once I paid to have the duct work replaced thereby correcting that problem, the compressor began functioning normally. The question is was [redacted] incompetent or did the Agent(s) that referred him for the inspection induce him NOT to LOOK.This could still be resolved in either Small Claims Court. It also may be referred to normal Court with a request for punitive damages to be applied to the entire "seller" Team because although I paid for my team (including [redacted]) to represent me they failed either because they are incompetent or because they conspired to "close the deal"

Business

Response:

I have no other comments as to the ducts. I have expressed that the defects were beyond the scope of our inspection. The insulation value was an average and rough visual estimate. And the report states that this is not the true R value. Here is exact comment on the report. "6-8 inches, R-26. Insulation is somewhat interrupted or compacted and the true R-factor at this point in time may be substantially less than that originally installed." We will gladly refund the inspection fee of $450.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: If that was the fact you should have UNDERRATED the Insulation and said it could be more. The buyer is trying to assess items that are or could be negotiable in fixing a final price. If Contractor does not understand that he should not be licensed. I will drop the claim for insulation ONLY if Contractor refunds my original $495.00 AND the $495.00 I paid for a re-inspection. That inspector and the City of Roseville were stunned at the lack of professionalism. I raised the insulation issue simply because Cal Pro had the nerve to continue the lie with a claim that the insulation was SO thick/deep that he (inspector) could not do his job. The Seller claimed to me that the Inspector "was his" and my Realtor selected the inspector. It appears that this very well may have been a 'planned' failure to perform.