Blue Thunder Towing

This customers concern was sent to our claims department.the report states, the roof was wet, inspector could not walk the roofFurther the report recommended roof and gutter repairs based on what could be seenAttached is a detailed copy of our responseJanuary 17, 2017To Whom It May Concern:We recently received a claim from your client [redacted] at [redacted] Silver Spring, MD ***We reviewed all required documents such as their inspection report, estimates/bill, and a brief statement describing the claim.Your client has filed the following claim:“On Jan 2016, upon cleaning the gutters of our new home I observed the following damages to the roof of [redacted] Silver Spring MD, ***These damages were not disclosed or found during the home inspection by your organization on 12/18/Due to the nature of the multiple issues it is truly unlikely that these issue were created during the month period between inspection and purchaseThere are several open holes in the roof and multiple spots of rotten wood , missing tiles/shingles/ siding.”On page 6-7, it is stated “Site and environmental conditions may dictate that certain systems or components cannot be safely inspected (e.groof too high above ground or snow on roof)When such conditions exist, the inspector will note in the report why a system or component was not inspectedNote: the inspection report at that point is completeIf client desires said system or component to be inspected, separate arrangements will have to be made with the inspection company or other professional“On page 9, it is stated “We Strongly Recommend the entire summary be discussed with a qualified contractorIt is not the inspectors responsibility to determine the cause of the issues described herein.”On page 10, Roof Coverings and Roof Drainage Systems, both are marked as needing repair or replacement.On page 10, Roof Coverings, it is stated “Roof inspection limited due to roof wet from weather and height above ground making it unsafe to walkAll observations were made from the ground (with a pole camera) and the atticThe roof over the front has been damaged, by the trees near the main roofRecommend a qualified roofer replace the damaged shingles.” Based on [redacted] International Standards of Practice for Performing a General Home Inspection the inspector is not required to “enter or access any area that may, in the inspector’s opinion, be unsafe.” Visit www.***.org to view these standards.On page 10, Roof Drainage Systems, it is stated “The gutters and gutter nails are missing and looseFailed gutters causes the rotting of the fascia boardAs the fascia board weakens further deterioration occursClient advised to keep gutters and downspouts clear and firmly attached to fascia boards.”After reviewing all of the required documentation we recommend this claim be denied.Please contact Warranty Management, LLC within hours if you disagree with our decision, or we will continue to process this claim on your behalfIf you have any questions or concerns, please contact us by phone ###-###-#### or via email [redacted] @inspectionwarranty.com.Sincerely,Shannon MClaims Representative Warranty Management

The customer has continued to make claims and post on social media misleading statements which include:1. they moved into a house with a leaking roof, suggesting they were not told the roof was leaking which is clearly documented in the report.2. Had we used a drone we would have found the leak, claiming we falsely advertise the use of drones, when there is no way a drone can find a leak3. They paid for Home inspection, Radon test, termite inspection and re-inspection totaling $880, yet they insist the home inspection was $8804. Customer was told problems existed with the windows and that they should seek advice BEFORE they purchased the home, they chose not to do so. For these reasons, as we have stated from the beginning, we ask that all FUTURE statements cease as stated in our release (attached). Note: the release makes no reference to comments already posted on social media, and we have never asked that those comments be removed. We have no problem with them remaining public together with our response. Thank you

An opinion is not a mistakeIt is our opinion that the roof did not require immediate replacementThe issue here is that this opinion was obtained after purchase, contrary to our recommendation to obtain such an opinion before purchaseWe are willing to refund the customers inspection fee

Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted] is cherry picking the report and omitting important facts. Mr [redacted] contends that we missed something, but has failed to provide any evidence of what we "missed", instead he sent several photographs taken by a roofer. These photographs, all but one, are identical... to the photos in the report we provided. Further Mr. [redacted] makes reference to the roofs age. The report clearly states the range given was an estimate, this estimate is based on the observations of the inspector, it is no more a statement of fact than the estimate given by his roofer. The report begins by defining what we mean by Repair or Replace as follows:Repair or Replace (RR) = The item, component or unit is not functioning as intended or needs further inspection by a qualified contractor. Items, components or units that can be repaired to satisfactory condition may not need replacement. Significantly deficient systems or components will be identified as: Not functional / unsafe / worn / near end of lifespan. When in the inspector's opinion, an item is "significantly deficient", the reason will be within the body of the report.It is not our responsibility to decide which option the customer chooses. The report also states:Note: The pictures and comments below represent a sampling of the issue found and are intended to help explain the area of concern. Other areas of similar concern could be present and are often found upon closer examination by a qualified contractor. We Strongly Recommend the entire summary be discussed with a qualified contractor. It is not the inspectors responsibility to determine the cause of the issues described herein.This is followed by 16 photographs of the roof from various angles. Sections 1.0, 1.2 and 1.3 are all marked RR (Repair or Replace). Section 1.3 is also Marked "FI" which means:Further Investigation Needed (FI) Inspector unable to draw a conclusion on system or component. Not enough visible evidence to define a system or component as serviceable, or in need or repairs and a more in depth review is recommended.The report summary includes the following:Client advised to take these issues into consideration before the end of the contingency period. RECOMMEND REINSPECTION BY OUR OFFICE WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE MADEMr. [redacted] stated that the roofer he consulted prior to purchasing the home did not visit the home to inspect the roof. Instead the "roofer" he chose simply looked at the report and said he could repair it for $1800.00. Mr. [redacted] accepted that amount from the seller and proceeded to purchase. The report recommended further investigation, which means a qualified contractor (roofer) needs to inspect it and give a 2nd opinion. According to Mr. [redacted] the roofer he chose did not do this.As an inspection company we make recommendations. We do not dictate what should or should not be done. The report clearly states he should consult a qualified contractor to further investigate and to discuss repair or replacement solutions to the issues we raised before he proceeded to purchase. Our guarantee covers items missed, not differences of opinion. No evidence has been provided identifying what we missed.A copy of the report can be found here: [redacted] Thank you for your attention to this issue

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Please ensure that Pro Spex refunds the home inspection fee per its latest correspondence
Regards,
*** ***

This customers concern was sent to our claims department.the report states, the roof was wet, inspector could not walk the roof. Further the report recommended roof and gutter repairs based on what could be seen. Attached is a detailed copy of our response. January 17, 2017To Whom It May...

Concern:We recently received a claim from your client [redacted] at [redacted] Silver Spring, MD [redacted]. We reviewed all required documents such as their inspection report, estimates/bill, and a brief statement describing the claim.Your client has filed the following claim:“On Jan 16 2016, upon cleaning the gutters of our new home I observed the following damages to the roof of [redacted] Silver Spring MD, [redacted]. These damages were not disclosed or found during the home inspection by your organization on 12/18/16. Due to the nature of the multiple issues it is truly unlikely that these issue were created during the 1 month period between inspection and purchase. There are several open holes in the roof and multiple spots of rotten wood , missing tiles/shingles/ siding.”On page 6-7, it is stated “Site and environmental conditions may dictate that certain systems or components cannot be safely inspected (e.g. roof too high above ground or snow on roof). When such conditions exist, the inspector will note in the report why a system or component was not inspected. Note: the inspection report at that point is complete. If client desires said system or component to be inspected, separate arrangements will have to be made with the inspection company or other professional. “On page 9, it is stated “We Strongly Recommend the entire summary be discussed with a qualified contractor. It is not the inspectors responsibility to determine the cause of the issues described herein.”On page 10, 1.0 Roof Coverings and 1.3 Roof Drainage Systems, both are marked as needing repair or replacement.On page 10, 1.0 Roof Coverings, it is stated “Roof inspection limited due to roof wet from weather and height above ground making it unsafe to walk. All observations were made from the ground (with a pole camera) and the attic. The roof over the front has been damaged, by the trees near the main roof. Recommend a qualified roofer replace the damaged shingles.” Based on [redacted] International Standards of Practice for Performing a General Home Inspection the inspector is not required to “enter or access any area that may, in the inspector’s opinion, be unsafe.” Visit www.[redacted].org to view these standards.On page 10, 1.3 Roof Drainage Systems, it is stated “The gutters and gutter nails are missing and loose. Failed gutters causes the rotting of the fascia board. As the fascia board weakens further deterioration occurs. Client advised to keep gutters and downspouts clear and firmly attached to fascia boards.”After reviewing all of the required documentation we recommend this claim be denied.Please contact Warranty Management, LLC within 24 hours if you disagree with our decision, or we will continue to process this claim on your behalf. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us by phone ###-###-#### or via email [redacted]@inspectionwarranty.com.Sincerely,Shannon MClaims Representative Warranty Management

The customer rightfully filed a claim under the terms of our guarantee. As per our guarantee, we have the option to correct the issues raised at no expense to the customer or pay the customer $1,000.00. Note: customer did not pay $880, inspection fee was $704.20The first claim filed was for the...

windows: This claim was denied because the report clearly states problems with the windows as follows:It appears the seal between glass panes has failed at master bedroom window resulting in staining between the panes. Over time this gets worse, turning into a milky white film until you cannot see thru the window. This condition typically requires replacement of the window.   Note: Others may have failed seals that may not be detected due to dry weather conditions or may fail at anytime. This condition cannot always be seen or future failure of the seal predicted. Consult a qualified window contractor for any further investigation and repair options.The customer did not contact a window contractor as advised. Further our report also cautions about not following our recommendations as follows:Client advised to take these issues into consideration before the end of the contingency period. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT CLIENT CONDUCT A REINSPECTION BY OUR OFFICE WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE MADE. Note: If this inspection is covered by our service guarantee, failure to follow our recommendations could void the terms of the guarantee.Client did not follow our recommendation,  and proceeded to purchase the home without consulting contractors.We made arrangements to have duct repairs done with a MD licensed  and insured contractor, consistent with the terms of our guarantee. Our guarantee does not give the customer the option to select the contractor. The customer refused to allow the contractor to conduct repairs, claiming that the contractor did not have enough online reviews on YELP, ignoring the fact that the contractor has 5* reviews elsewhere. We then offered to close the issue by offering to $1,000, the maximum under the guarantee. The customer accepted this offer and was sent a release statement. It is our position that if a settlement is reached and considered closed, neither party should be allowed to then proceed to further communicate via any means the events, terms and conditions of the settlement. The fact that the customer is not presenting a complete picture of events is precisely why we want a release that prevents this one sided description.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: a non-disclosure agreement was not part of the terms of the guarantee provided when we paid for service.Again, we refuse to sign their release with a hush clause. It is manipulative and unjustifiable. Their advertised guarantee doesn't include any condition of confidentiality to receive payment or repairs for items missed.  We have no intention of giving up our right to share our experience. If we agreed to their hush clause, we would not be allowed to answer questions coming from other social media users, like with Yelp. We also wouldn't be able to share our experience when the business creates new profiles, unlinking previous reviews. Obviously Pro Spex knows this, which is why they want us to agree to a hush clause. But if they are so confident in their services, customer satisfaction, and current reviews, why do they care if we continue to share our story? And if they were truly concerned about the integrity and quality of their company, why don't they own up to their mistakes and honor their guarantee without a hush clause? And if they know we will continue to share our experience regardless, why don't they honor their guarantee so we can share that as well? Our request remains the same. We request them to follow through with their offer they made on August 8th, to pay $1,000 in lieu of fixing items, under the conditions specified under the guarantee at the time of employing their services.
Regards,
[redacted]

Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted] is cherry picking the report and omitting important facts.  Mr [redacted] contends that we missed something, but has failed to provide any evidence of what we "missed", instead he sent several photographs taken by a  roofer. These photographs, all but one, are identical...

to the photos in the report we provided. Further Mr. [redacted] makes reference to the roofs age. The report clearly states the range given was an estimate, this estimate is based on the observations of the inspector, it is no more a statement of fact than the estimate given by his roofer. The report begins by defining what we mean by Repair or Replace as follows:Repair or Replace (RR) = The item, component or unit is not functioning as intended or needs further inspection by a qualified contractor. Items, components or units that can be repaired to satisfactory condition may not need replacement. Significantly deficient systems or components  will be identified as: Not functional / unsafe / worn / near end of lifespan.  When in the inspector's opinion, an item is "significantly deficient", the reason will be within the body of the report.It is not our responsibility to decide which option the customer chooses. The report also states:Note: The pictures and comments below represent a sampling of the issue found and are intended to help explain the area of concern. Other areas of similar concern could be present and are often found upon closer examination by a qualified contractor. We Strongly Recommend the entire summary be discussed with a qualified contractor. It is not the inspectors responsibility to determine the cause of the issues described herein.This is followed by 16 photographs of the roof from various angles. Sections 1.0, 1.2 and 1.3 are all marked RR (Repair or Replace). Section 1.3 is also Marked "FI" which means:Further Investigation Needed (FI) Inspector unable to draw a conclusion on system or component. Not enough visible evidence to define a system or component as serviceable, or in need or repairs and a more in depth review is recommended.The report summary includes the following:Client advised to take these issues into consideration before the end of the contingency period. RECOMMEND REINSPECTION BY OUR OFFICE WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE MADEMr. [redacted] stated that the roofer he consulted prior to purchasing the home did not visit the home to inspect the roof. Instead the "roofer" he chose simply looked at the report and said he could repair it for $1800.00. Mr. [redacted] accepted that amount from the seller and proceeded to purchase. The report recommended further investigation, which means a qualified contractor (roofer) needs to inspect it and give a 2nd opinion. According to Mr. [redacted] the roofer he chose did not do this.As an inspection company we make recommendations. We do not dictate what should or should not be done. The report clearly states he should consult a qualified contractor to further investigate and to discuss repair or replacement solutions to the issues we raised before he proceeded to purchase. Our guarantee covers items missed, not differences of opinion. No evidence has been provided identifying what we missed.A copy of the report can be found here: [redacted]Thank you for your attention to this issue

The customer has continued to make claims and post on social media misleading statements which include:1. they moved into a house with a leaking roof, suggesting they were not told the roof was leaking which is clearly documented in the report.2. Had we used a drone we would have found the leak, claiming we falsely advertise the use of drones, when there is no way a drone can find a leak3. They paid for Home inspection, Radon test, termite inspection and re-inspection totaling $880, yet they insist the home inspection was $8804. Customer was told problems existed with the windows and that they should seek advice BEFORE they purchased the home, they chose not to do so. For these reasons, as we have stated from the beginning, we ask that all FUTURE statements cease as stated in our release (attached). Note: the release makes no reference to comments already posted on social media, and we have never asked that those comments be removed. We have no problem with them remaining public together with our response. Thank you

An opinion is not a mistake. It is our opinion that the roof did not require immediate replacement. The issue here is that this opinion was obtained after purchase, contrary to our recommendation to obtain such an opinion before purchase. We are willing to refund the customers inspection fee.