Bardi Construction Up On The Roof

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/11/01) */ During the course of the inspection several suspicious areas were noted in the wood sidingWhen touched, the surface paint collapsed and revealed heavy rot and termite damageThe material was so damaged that is just disintegratedThe areas in question where not aggressively probed as impliedProbing damaged areas is practiceIt is our opinion that these areas where intentionally hidden and where not disclosed in the sellers disclosure as well Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2016/11/02) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) He is wrong about the disclosureIt was stated that there was some wood decay on Masonite siding and exterior wood trimWe wee told that inspectors are not suppose to do any damage during their inspectionThere were damaged spots about the size of a half dollarHe told me he believed the inspector when he said he just touched the siding and it disintegrated because it was his sonWhen I asked why he made so many holes he said the buyers realtor told the inspector to do soHe went on to say "blah blah blah blAh" just do what you have toThis is probably the least professional company I've dealt with in a long timeBuyers and sellers be aware of this company Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2016/11/02) */ The home owner is just disgruntled and angry that we discovered their attempt to hide an issue Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 11, 2016/11/10) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Nothing left to add other than this business and it's owner are very unprofessional in the manner they complete inspections and the response from the ownerHe responded to the complaint in a very juvenile manner and claimed that we were trying to hide damageEverything was disclosed on the disclosure formBeware if your home is inspected by this company

We performed [redacted] ’s inspection on 7/10/and there was no vapor barrier installedWe recommended that one be installed in the reportWe have pictures showing most of the crawlspace with no disconnected ductwork or plumbing leaksSome of the pictures were in the report and others were saved to the report file in case any issue were to occurSomeone did enter the crawlspace after we did our inspection and installed a vapor barrier upon the request of Mr [redacted] We did go back to his property on January 5th; within a week of him notifying the office that there was an issueUpon arrival, we listened to his concerns and then proceeded to enter the crawlspaceThis was when we noticed that a vapor barrier was installedI attempted to explain that we cannot be held responsible for damages that occur after we performed our inspectionMr [redacted] basically accused us of being liars, saying that we did not enter the crawlspace even though there are pictures documenting that we did, proving otherwiseI was very courteous to Mr [redacted] but I was stern especially after he made accusations against my company and employeesAdditionally, we always recommend that a reinspection be performed once any repairs are made to insure that it was performed in a workmanlike mannerHe failed to do soIn closing, we cannot control what damage occurs after an inspection

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Out is clearly obvious that A Pro did not do a full inspection of the crawl spaceI had a plumber come out to fix a drain leakThe plumber found a inch hole in the kitchen drain pipe that had been leaking for months! I also have pictures of this drain pipe All of the photos that APro have are just photos from the opening of the crawl spaceI truly believe that A Pro never went under the home and did the inspection as they sayThere for I feel that I should be reimbursed for the inspection Sincerely, [redacted]

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2016/05/10) */ We always disclose the re-inspection fee verbally to the person who booked the reinspectWhether that was the client or their duly appointed representative (real estate agent)It has ALWAYS been $We offered to reduce it to $for any perceived misunderstandingHowever, we will now revoke that offerIt is now back to the original $plus a $late fee and 1.8% interest per monthWe will put a mechanics lien on their property and update it every monthsThis is stated on the bottom of the invoice We performed a requested service and deserve to be paid for it! Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2016/05/11) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The fee was NOT disclosedThe real estate agent did not book the re-inspectionWe booked it and were NOT TOLDIt is nowhere in writing or agreement and we are not okay with being held responsibleIn response to the above conditions, that is totally unacceptable to INCREASE and PENALIZE someone for trying to address the issueAdditionally, the invoice says nothing about extra charges within a day period and we did not even RECEIVE the invoice until April 15th, so not even days ago Revdex.com- please review this because it is totally unethicalThank you Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 12, 2016/05/11) */ See you in court

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/21) */
We disagree with the client and feel that there is some hail damageWe have pictures of the condition of the roof and the crawl spaceAs the roof is being replaced anyway we don't understand why she is disgruntled
Initial Consumer
Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/06/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Two professionals, an insurance adjuster and a roofing professional stated there was no hail damage and have pictures as proof
I am not able to trust the reliability of the rest of report given this error and ill given advice of the service provider who completed the inspection to contact my insurance provider to initiate a claim, which is now on my record
The unprofessional manner of the owner has not instilled faith in the report eitherIt is as if he does not care about the quality of work his employees provide
I do believe I should pay for the termite inspection as it was provided by a contracted provider, not A-Pro INspections
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/06/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The service provider is not proposing a resolution for me to respond toI would like to reiterate what I said in the past response
I did not receive reliable information on my home inspectionI received incorrect informationPlease refer to my last response
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/06/21) */
We performed the requested service in a professional manor

We performed *** ***’s inspection on 6/16/and found numerous items that needed to be corrected including termite damage and areas on the exterior that needed to be repainted to prevent future damageThe item in question was some rotted door trim around the rear sliding glass doorWe did
not call this out specifically and are responsible for this issue only. A home inspection can only identify those areas that are visible and accessible during an inspectionWe cannot rip up vinyl, carpet, drywall, door jamb or remove subfloor insulationWhen Mr*** moved in, if memory serves, he stated that he removed flooring material adjacent to the rear sliding glass door and found some rotted subfloorThis area was covered during the inspection as well as the subfloor underneath due to insulation. When Mr*** notified us, we returned to his home and found the floor covering removed and there was indeed some subfloor damagedHe had purchased a new sliding glass door and as a courtesy, we said we would repair the subfloor and install the door for himWe did replace the subfloor but were unable to install the sliding glass door as it was larger than the original space and was beyond our capabilityWe used solid wood for the flooring as it is much stronger than traditional subfloor materialAdditionally, Mr*** chose to purchase a new door rather than use the existing doorThis was his choice as the old one could have been used and the trim replaced instead. Mr*** had a carpenter install the new door that he chose to purchaseWe cannot be responsible for his decision to install a new doorWe are only responsible to replace the rotted door trim that we did not call outHidden defects are beyond the scope of an inspectionAs we did replace the hidden damaged subfloor, I would say that we are even

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/27) */
The client was notified clearly in the report and verbally during the inspection briefing that there was standing water in the crawl space preventing us from inspecting certain areasIt is the responsibility of the client to request any repairs
necessary and to request any additional inspections
We do honor the day guarantee and did not enter the crawl space as the issue fell under the category of inaccessibility as noted in the inspection agreement that they signed
As we performed the inspection as requested, as per the agreement, as per all inspection standards and documented any and all issues that were reasonably accessible, there will be no refund
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response from the company because it is and inaccurateNo where in the report does it state that they did not have access to the crawlspace, or were restricted from inspecting areas with standing waterBelow is an exact excerpt from the report:
Crawl Space
Improve:
All wood debris and/or trash should be removed from the crawl space
Improve:
A moisture barrier should be installed on the crawl space floorGenerally speaking, this is a mil plastic (moderately thick) with 6" overlapping and taped seamsIdeally, it should be run up the foundation walls and stapled to the rim joistAny piers should also be sealed aroundThis should keep all ground source moisture below the plasticNote: if a plumbing leak develops, moisture can become trapped so periodic visual inspections should be preformed
Improve:
Standing water was observed in the crawl spaceWet crawl spaces risk building damage from rot and insects and can cause interior mold or mildewRoof and lot drainage repairs or improvements should be addressed as a first step to controlling water in the crawl spaceIt is recommended that a sump pump be installedIf one is already installed, drain ditches should be added to direct the flow of water to the sump pumpAdditionally, it may be wise to consider installing a plastic vapor barrier in the crawl spaceThis condition should then be monitored to determine if additional potentially costly measures are necessary
As you can see not only does the report not state that the inspector was unable to do further inspections because of the standing water but later in the plumbing portion he states that the system is in and I quote "The plumbing system is in good condition and no leaks were observed in the supply and/or drainage systems." This was another oversight by the inspector because if he had actually checked the drainage system to the plumbing he would find that the standing water in the crawl space came not from bad landscaping drainage, but from a leaky toilet that had a big hole in it's wax ringThis lead to massive amounts of water leaking through to the crawlspace with each flushEven if I believe that the inspectors are not suppose to go into standing water, he still should of watched the plumbing as someone flushed water into the system to check for leaks under the houseIf he had done a proper job like this it would be very evident that the standing water came from a leaky toilet drain
I refute this company's response and would like for them to show where in my report they state that the area was inaccessible to the inspector because of standing waterFurthermore I would like to know that if this was the case why were we not recommended to have a re-inspection? As this company claims to have professionals working for them I would assume that they would have given a professional opinion to their customer and warned them that if an area was not inspected then a re-inspection should be neededInstead we got a lackluster inspection that I myself could have done and saved myself the inspection cost
Since I refute their response, my resolution still stands that A-Pro Inspections should give me a full refund of my inspection and help me with a claim to fix the damages with the A-Pro corporate office
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/08/17) */
My original statement standsDespite the incorrect and condescending remarks, as it appears that neither of us is willing to capitulate, I will take the high road and offer a 50% refund, *** This is my final offer!

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/05/10) */
We always disclose the re-inspection fee verbally to the person who booked the reinspect. Whether that was the client or their duly appointed representative (real estate agent). It has ALWAYS been $75. We offered to reduce it to $50 for any...

perceived misunderstanding. However, we will now revoke that offer. It is now back to the original $75 plus a $50 late fee and 1.8% interest per month. We will put a mechanics lien on their property and update it every 6 months. This is stated on the bottom of the invoice.
We performed a requested service and deserve to be paid for it!
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/05/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The fee was NOT disclosed. The real estate agent did not book the re-inspection. We booked it and were NOT TOLD. It is nowhere in writing or agreement and we are not okay with being held responsible. In response to the above conditions, that is totally unacceptable to INCREASE and PENALIZE someone for trying to address the issue. Additionally, the invoice says nothing about extra charges within a 60 day period and we did not even RECEIVE the invoice until April 15th, so not even 30 days ago.
Revdex.com- please review this because it is totally unethical. Thank you.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2016/05/11) */
See you in court

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/11/21) */
We did not "lie". Lying implies intentional deceit. We did note that there was steel piping and disclosed that older piping is subject to internal corrosion and eventual blockage. We did not specifically note cast iron and for that we stand by...

our guarantee and offered a complete refund. We will not replace all of her piping as requested as that is way over kill. She stated here that they were in the home 2 days and started have issues but when she talked to us it was 4. Which is it? A home inspector is only in the home for a couple of hours and only flush water through the system and no solids. We can not predict the condition of a home going forward. Also, this was a vacant home. Debris in the piping could very well have dislodged in that 4 day time frame but there is no way to predict this. Again, the most we are willing to do is offer a refund.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/11/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
You also said the drain/waste/vent piping was plastic when it was no, and in generally good condition which it was not. As I mentioned before it was two days she began having trouble. A plumber came on the fourth day.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/11/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Due to their incompetent handling of their work, or flat out lying we have taken the burden of a house with plumbing issues along with a plumbing bill.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/11/23) */
Our previous response stands.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/11/01) */
During the course of the inspection several suspicious areas were noted in the wood siding. When touched, the surface paint collapsed and revealed heavy rot and termite damage. The material was so damaged that is just disintegrated. The areas in...

question where not aggressively probed as implied. Probing damaged areas is normal practice. It is our opinion that these areas where intentionally hidden and where not disclosed in the sellers disclosure as well.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/11/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
He is wrong about the disclosure. It was stated that there was some wood decay on Masonite siding and exterior wood trim. We wee told that inspectors are not suppose to do any damage during their inspection. There were 5 damaged spots about the size of a half dollar. He told me he believed the inspector when he said he just touched the siding and it disintegrated because it was his son. When I asked why he made so many holes he said the buyers realtor told the inspector to do so. He went on to say "blah blah blah blAh" just do what you have to. This is probably the least professional company I've dealt with in a long time. Buyers and sellers be aware of this company.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/11/02) */
The home owner is just disgruntled and angry that we discovered their attempt to hide an issue.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/11/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Nothing left to add other than this business and it's owner are very unprofessional in the manner they complete inspections and the response from the owner. He responded to the complaint in a very juvenile manner and claimed that we were trying to hide damage. Everything was disclosed on the disclosure form. Beware if your home is inspected by this company.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/05/10) */
The items she has complained about where documented in the report. The "issue" regarding the piping in the crawl space was a code issue. The piping is fine. Refund is denied.

We have previously stated our response and stand by it. No refund will be forthcoming.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Out is clearly obvious that A Pro did not do a full inspection of the crawl space. I had a plumber come  out to fix a drain leak. The plumber found a 8 inch hole in the kitchen drain pipe that had been leaking for months! I also have pictures of this drain pipe.   All of the photos that APro have are just photos from the opening of the crawl space. I truly believe that A Pro never went under the home and did the inspection as they say. There for I feel that I should be reimbursed for the inspection. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

We performed [redacted]’s inspection on 7/10/2017 and there was no vapor barrier installed. We recommended that one be installed in the report. We have pictures showing most of the crawlspace with no disconnected ductwork or plumbing leaks. Some of the pictures were in the report and others were...

saved to the report file in case any issue were to occur. Someone did enter the crawlspace after we did our inspection and installed a vapor barrier upon the request of Mr. [redacted]. We did go back to his property on January 5th; within a week of him notifying the office that there was an issue. Upon arrival, we listened to his concerns and then proceeded to enter the crawlspace. This was when we noticed that a vapor barrier was installed. I attempted to explain that we cannot be held responsible for damages that occur after we performed our inspection. Mr. [redacted] basically accused us of being liars, saying that we did not enter the crawlspace even though there are pictures documenting that we did, proving otherwise. I was very courteous to Mr. [redacted] but I was stern especially after he made false accusations against my company and employees. Additionally, we always recommend that a reinspection be performed once any repairs are made to insure that it was performed in a workmanlike manner. He failed to do so. In closing, we cannot control what damage occurs after an inspection.