On May 8, 2017, the Buyer's and Buyer's Agent, [redacted], met with Mr. [redacted] to complete a pest inspection. A termite inspection is actually a Wood Destroying Organism Inspection, which is clearly defined and stated on page 2 of every report we complete. We look for Section I items which...
pertain to active infestation and Section II items, which are conducive conditions that in future may become Section I items. Once the inspection was completed, the Inspector reviewed all findings of the report with the Buyers and Buyer's Agent. The Inspector walked the property with the Buyer and Buyer's Agent to review his findings on the field sheet. Mr. [redacted] noticed that the Buyer's Agent was becoming irritated. After reviewing the field sheet, the Buyer's Agent confronted Mr. [redacted] and questioned all findings that were found. She indicated in her experience she had never seen dry rot as a finding on a pest report. On May 25, 2017, the Buyer's Agent requested Mr. [redacted] meet her with the Buyer's and Seller, who had flown in from out of state, to complete the repairs, to re-inspect the completed items that had been repaired; which is known as a Re-Inspection. On May 25, 2017, at the beginning of the review, the Seller was confrontational, due to the fact that he had repaired some items without the understanding of the scope of the pest inspection. Mr. [redacted] walked with the Seller to review the items listed on the Report. The Buyer's and Buyer's Agent remained in the structure. Mr. [redacted] explained to the Seller the conditions of the Section I and II findings on the report. It was discussed between the Inspector, [redacted] and the Seller admitted that he had not understood the scope of the report initially. The Seller was only able to repair (3) three Section I items of concern. After review of the report the Seller stated he understood and agreed to the findings on the report. The Seller stated that [redacted] had treated the surface fungus under the structure, but Mr. [redacted] was never given documentation to sign that item off as completed. Mr. [redacted] gave a summary to the Buyers and Buyer's Agent, due to them not being present during the conversation with the Seller previously outside. Following the summary to the Buyers and the Buyer's Agent, they both became very upset with the Inspector and the Buyer's Agent also stated that the Inspector had added additional findings to the report, which was untrue. There were 3 Reports. The original Report [redacted] was completed on May 8, 2017, and resent as a corrected report due to a coding error. A Supplemental Report [redacted] was also issued on May 8, 2017, indicating dry rot at the garage. The Buyer's Agent called and requested an appointment with Mr.[redacted] to meet at the property to re-inspect the items repaired. On May 25, 2017, Mr. [redacted] completed a Re-Inspection Report [redacted]. The Inspector could only clear 3 of 10 Section I items that had been completed and therefore, no Section I or II Clearance could be given at that time. The Buyer's Agent paid for the original Inspection, indicating it was a gift to the Buyer's which she paid by credit card. The Buyer's Agent indicated she would no longer use River City Termite and Pest Control for services. She has refused to pay for the Re-Inspection and at this time is still outstanding, although we don't expect payment at this time.
On May 8, 2017, the Buyer's and Buyer's Agent, [redacted], met with Mr. [redacted] to complete a pest inspection. A termite inspection is actually a Wood Destroying Organism Inspection, which is clearly defined and stated on page 2 of every report we complete. We look for Section I items which...
pertain to active infestation and Section II items, which are conducive conditions that in future may become Section I items. Once the inspection was completed, the Inspector reviewed all findings of the report with the Buyers and Buyer's Agent. The Inspector walked the property with the Buyer and Buyer's Agent to review his findings on the field sheet. Mr. [redacted] noticed that the Buyer's Agent was becoming irritated. After reviewing the field sheet, the Buyer's Agent confronted Mr. [redacted] and questioned all findings that were found. She indicated in her experience she had never seen dry rot as a finding on a pest report. On May 25, 2017, the Buyer's Agent requested Mr. [redacted] meet her with the Buyer's and Seller, who had flown in from out of state, to complete the repairs, to re-inspect the completed items that had been repaired; which is known as a Re-Inspection. On May 25, 2017, at the beginning of the review, the Seller was confrontational, due to the fact that he had repaired some items without the understanding of the scope of the pest inspection. Mr. [redacted] walked with the Seller to review the items listed on the Report. The Buyer's and Buyer's Agent remained in the structure. Mr. [redacted] explained to the Seller the conditions of the Section I and II findings on the report. It was discussed between the Inspector, [redacted] and the Seller admitted that he had not understood the scope of the report initially. The Seller was only able to repair (3) three Section I items of concern. After review of the report the Seller stated he understood and agreed to the findings on the report. The Seller stated that [redacted] had treated the surface fungus under the structure, but Mr. [redacted] was never given documentation to sign that item off as completed. Mr. [redacted] gave a summary to the Buyers and Buyer's Agent, due to them not being present during the conversation with the Seller previously outside. Following the summary to the Buyers and the Buyer's Agent, they both became very upset with the Inspector and the Buyer's Agent also stated that the Inspector had added additional findings to the report, which was untrue. There were 3 Reports. The original Report [redacted] was completed on May 8, 2017, and resent as a corrected report due to a coding error. A Supplemental Report [redacted] was also issued on May 8, 2017, indicating dry rot at the garage. The Buyer's Agent called and requested an appointment with Mr.[redacted] to meet at the property to re-inspect the items repaired. On May 25, 2017, Mr. [redacted] completed a Re-Inspection Report [redacted]. The Inspector could only clear 3 of 10 Section I items that had been completed and therefore, no Section I or II Clearance could be given at that time. The Buyer's Agent paid for the original Inspection, indicating it was a gift to the Buyer's which she paid by credit card. The Buyer's Agent indicated she would no longer use River City Termite and Pest Control for services. She has refused to pay for the Re-Inspection and at this time is still outstanding, although we don't expect payment at this time.