Cornerstone Inspection Service

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Listing in the General Notes that the windows should be inspected does not lead to a sense of urgency that there is something significantly wrong The wood is ROTTED and there there is SPACE between the frames and the wallThat is not something you suggest be inspected - that is something you list as Critical and REQUIRE be inspected I want their license suspended/revoked Their attention to detail is horrendous, and they do not deserve to be in the industry Regards, [redacted]

I am writing this letter in response to a complaint received in our office on Monday 7-20-from your office with the above ID#The Complaint was submitted by [redacted] and is regarding the property located at [redacted] **., Fishers, IN which was inspected by Cornerstone on February 18, by Kevin [redacted] (inspector for Cornerstone)I have the following response to Ms [redacted] 's complaint: We inspected the property in question on February 18, at 12:00PM and during the course of that inspection, there were several issues with windows observed and reported to Ms [redacted] in the home inspection reportOne of the comments reads that all the windows should be evaluated In a phone conversation with Ms [redacted] 's Realtor, I was informed that Ms [redacted] had asked the sellers, in her response to the inspection, to have all the window issues listed in the report addressed including having them evaluatedThe seller declined that request and Ms [redacted] decided to proceed with the purchase of the home knowing that there were windows issuesFurthermore, Ms [redacted] , Knowing the information contained in the report regarding the windows, did not have her own contractor evaluate the windows, as was directed by the report, prior to closing on the home to determine what repairs were needed and the cost associated with those repairs (a right she has in purchasing a home) Based on the fact that we found and reported window issues in the home, that Ms [redacted] asked the sellers to repair/evaluate the windows as part of her response to the inspection, and that she did not do her own due diligence in finding out what she could be faced with in accepting the windows in the condition that they were in at the time of the inspection, Cornerstone is not willing to participate in any refund of fees or repairs to any window in the condo Sincerely Randy [redacted] President/Inspector

I am writing this letter in
response to a complaint received in
our office on Saturday 6-14-from your office with the above ID#The
Complaint was submitted by *** *** and is regarding the property located at
*** *** *** **., Carmel, IN which was inspected by MrKaile ***
an inspector for Cornerstone Inspection Services, IncI have the following
response to Mr*** complaint:
We inspected the property, mentioned above,
on September 20, at 9:00AMThe claim is based around a chimney which is
leaning away from the rear of the home• We received a complaint on this issue
by email in our office through the *** real estate agent, *** ***
on June 2, I sent the *** an email that same day asking permission to
visit the home to view the Issue for myselfThe *** gave permission and I
went there the next afternoon
The point of my visit to the home was to determine
if the item was missed, not visible at the time of the inspection, and/or to
see what, if any, changes have occurred to the area in questionIt is safe to
say that the conditions at the area in question have definitely changed as the
deck on the rear of the home, which was there when we inspected the home, has
been removed and a new screened porch is approximately 50% complete (screened
porch occupies 40% of the original deck area)The anchor bolts, which held the
deck to the home, however, are still sticking out of the brick veneer clearly
showing the line at which the deck was at when we inspected the homeThe now
visible cracks in the chimney brick work are below this line
thus hiding the cracks from our inspector at
the time of the inspectionThe only way to have seen these cracks was to remove portions of the
decking which would be outside the scope of the inspection
The original inspection report (copy
enclosed) dated September 20, has several statements regarding the brick
veneer on the rear of the homePage of the report contains several
statements regarding the brick veneerThe comments state that the rear brick
veneer is
settling and needs to be monitoredOne of those comments also states "Monitor Regularly And Maintain As The
House Ages - This Could Need Corrective Action If The Problem
Continues"This
information informed the *** that repairs could be needed in the near
futureAs inspectors, we cannot predict the future but only point out
potential issues, which, in this case is what we didThere are no visible
cracks in the brick veneer in any of the photos in the reportPage also
states that the patio door in this area does not operate properly and page
talks about loose trim boards located in the same area
During
my visit to the property on June 3, 2014, I observed that the caulk Joint at
the rear patio door has not changed in condition since we inspected the home
some nine months agoI also observed that there are currently no cracks in the
brick veneer above the line where the deck was locatedYou can see in the
photos, that the deck which was installed when we inspected the home was
clearly installed above any visible cracks in the brick workThere were no
statements made by Mrs*** regarding any signs of movement on the interior
of the home in the area around the chimneySo the chimney, which has settled
away from the home, moved at some point in the past and has not moved recently
(at least in the last nine months since the inspection date)Given the
harshness of the winter we just had, if the chimney was still moving it would
have moved this past winterThere are not visible signs of recent movement
As for
Mr*** statement regarding culpability on our partI am not sure how he
can make that statement as he was not at the property when I visited the home,
did not hear any of the conversation between myself and Mrs***, and I
specifically told Mrs*** when we were standing near the end of the driveway
that I did not see that our inspector missed the chimney as the cracks were not
visible until the deck was removed from the home, that the report talks about
the settling brick veneer, patio door binding and the caulk joint, and did not
see that we could participate in any repairsI also offered to Mrs***
that I would contact my brother, who owns *** ** *** ***, to come
out and provide an estimate for stabilizing the chimney, as that is a service
that they provide, as an option for repairsShe was agreeable to this
Our
contract for inspection services specifically states that the inspection is
"a visual analysis for the purpose of providing a professional opinion of
the condition of a residential dwelling and the dwelling's carports or garages,
any reasonably accessible installed components, and the operation of the
dwelling's systems, including any controls normally operated by the owner of
the dwelling, for the following components: heating systems; cooling systems;
electrical systems; plumbing systems; structural components; foundations; roof
coverings; exterior and interior components; and any other site aspects that
affect the residential dwellingThe inspection shall be conducted in
accordance with IAC 1-2-1, as amended or modified from time to time, and is
limited to the readily accessible areas of the dwelling without the requirement
of moving of personal property; taking apart or removing any component, device,
or equipment that would not be taken apart in the course of and routine
homeowner maintenance; using destructive measures; or taking any action that
will likely involve risk to persons or property.." the removal of the deck to expose the
cracks in the brick work would be beyond the scope/definition of the
inspection
Clause of the contract states "PURPOSE
OF HOME INSPECTION: The purposes of the home inspection are to:
(A) analyze and give an opinion on those systems and components inspected that
in the professional opinion of the inspector are significantly deficient (which
is defined as being unsafe or non-functioning) or near the end of their service
lives; (B) report a reason why, if not self-evident, the system or component is
significantly deficient or near the end of its service life; (C) provide a
recommendation to correct or monitor the reported deficiency; and (D) report on
any systems and components designated for inspection that were present at the
time of the home inspection but were not inspected and the reason they were not
inspectedBecause of the limited nature of the Inspection, there Is likelihood
that CIS may not find every defect in the inspected systems and componentsClient
acknowledges that CIS shall not be held
responsible for significant deficiencies that cannot be discovered
because they are hidden, latent concealed, or covered, or because such system
or component is not operable or cannot be inspected due to weather conditions at the time of the inspection(Underlining
added)
Based on all the above information, Cornerstone respectfully must
decline Mr*** request to repair the item in question
Sincerely
Randy ***
President/Inspector

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Cornerstone inspected my property taking things apart and putting things back togetherSo any inspector can go in any home and cause damage that they don’t have a contract with (because you don’t with any homeowner you do an inspection with) and they are complete off the hook? The liability of such damages lies with the buyer and Cornerstone InspectionPerhaps this is why Randy referred me to the “warranty company” but when he found out they didn’t cover sump pumps he changed his story.I can provide get a statement of the technician who did the repairs if requestedThe sump pump worked when the Cornerstone Inspector arrived and didn’t work when he leftThis is a fact that can’t be disputed.Randy has no proof that the inspector followed standard procedures because Randy was not down in the crawl space observing Harry’s procedures nor does Cornerstone Inspection have a procedure manual on site as to how they are going to perform, or check off, procedures the inspections performed of various homes and or appliancesRandy again would not know the age of the sump pump either because he was not down in the crawlIf the “standard procedure” was to just bypass the switch then how could Randy know the age of the pump being you would need to take it out of the pit to find this out? Randy doesn’t know anything about any agreement with the buyer of the propertyThere is a non-disclosure agreement between the both of us so I find this interesting if Randy has been reaching out to my buyer for informationIf this is so I will take this up with my buyerRandy has no proof and or knowledge of any contract terms or conditions of the agreementIf he does I would like to see this document because I know he does not have one.These are not accusations RandyFact- The sump pump worked when your inspector arrivedFact- The sump pump didn’t work when your inspector leftFact- To fix the sump pump it cost me $to fixFact- Cornerstone Inspection inspected my home Fact- Cornerstone Inspection broke the sump pump while performing their inspection (probably unintentionally)Because of these facts I expect to be reimbursed the $for the repair of damage to my sump pump during Cornerstones Inspection of my property.Regards,*** ***

We take several issues with the complaint as filed and ask that the Revdex.com administratively close the file based on the following;
normal'> Standing - the complainant is not a client of ours, and we have no contractual relationship with him. The complaint was filed as a “Contract Dispute”, for which Mr*** can provide no such contract. We have no relationship with him nor any obligation to him we would have with a client, since he is not one. Allowing this type of complaint is a slippery slope for the Revdex.com- it opens the door to anyone filing a complaint on any company regardless of whether they’ve actually been a client or not
2. Damages- the complainant has no damages to come after us for. In his complaint he simply suggests that the plumber he hired to do the repairs indicated that the pump float and switch were inoperable. In no way did the plumber suggest to Mr***, verbally or in writing, nor did Mr*** state that he was informed, verbally or in writing, that our inspector damaged the pump. The entire basis of his complaint with the Revdex.com is that his old sump pump failed and that we must be responsible since we were there at some point prior to the failure. This entire scenario is purely coincidental, and candidly expected considering the age of the pump
Our inspection procedures, despite his allegations, don’t include touching the sump pump float switch for the system he has alleged. Our standard procedure was followed, which involved simply bypassing the switch. This would not be a cause for such a failure and this can be verified with any qualified plumber. The only malfunction it could cause mechanically would be the pump motor failure itself if we ran it dry and overheated the unit- though sensors in the device would likely prevent even that failure from occurring. If one were to actually damage a float switch physically, that would involve much more than incidental contact- it would be intentional abuse that would be easily identifiable.
Furthermore, Mr*** has already signed a mutual release from the contract entered into with the buyer he references in his complaint. He waived any and all rights to recourse regarding this issue when this occurred, as we were simply a service provider for that purchaser when they had equitable title in the property.
Mr*** is simply attempting to extort money from our company, utilizing the Revdex.com in that process, and doing so under assumptions that aren’t mechanically possible. He has no standing to make a complaint against us, he waived all claim to this issue when he signed a mutual release from a purchase contract, and he has no basis for his claims that were the cause of the issue
This complaint should be administratively closed at the very least
If you have questions feel free to contact me any time
Sincerely,
Randy ***
President/ Inspector
317-339-

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Listing in the General Notes that the windows should be inspected does not lead to a sense of urgency that there is something significantly wrong.  The wood is ROTTED and there there is SPACE between the frames and the wall. That is not something you suggest be inspected - that is something you list as Critical and REQUIRE be inspected.  I want their license suspended/revoked.  Their attention to detail is horrendous, and they do not deserve to be in the industry. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Mr [redacted] consistently refers to the presence of the deck as the reason that his inspector was not able to see the potential problem.  The foundation cracks under the deck is only one of the four issues that indicated an issue.  The other 3 visible items, specifically the thick caulk line, the broken freeze board and the separation of the chimney flashing should have led a competent inspector to suggest that this problem needed attention and remediation.  Instead all the inspector wrote in his report was a comment to the effect that the caulk line should be monitored.
Also Mr [redacted] indicates in his note that, while at the curb with my wife, he said that he would not provide any assistance with the repairs.  My wife's recollection was that a) Mr [redacted] had said that the inspector should have noted all issues that indicated a possible problem area and that b) Mr [redacted] was not sure how much of the claim he would cover.
It is our opinion that the company, Cornerstone Inspection Services, should accept responsibility for the lack of attention given to a serious and potentially dangerous condition.  If this issue had been raised at the time of the inspection, we would have at a minimum looked to the sellers for a remedy, or backed away from the purchase of the home.
Regards,
[redacted]

I am writing this letter in response to a complaint received in our office on Monday 7-20-2015 from your office with the above ID#. The Complaint was...

submitted by [redacted] and is regarding the property located at [redacted]., Fishers, IN 46038 which was inspected by Cornerstone on February 18, 2015 by Kevin [redacted] (inspector for Cornerstone). I have the following response to Ms. [redacted]'s complaint:
We inspected the property in question on February 18, 2015 at 12:00PM and during the course of that inspection, there were several issues with windows observed and reported to Ms. [redacted] in the home inspection report. One of the comments reads that all the windows should be evaluated.
In a phone conversation with Ms. [redacted]'s Realtor, I was informed that Ms. [redacted] had asked the sellers, in her response to the inspection, to have all the window issues listed in the report addressed including having them evaluated. The seller declined that request and Ms. [redacted] decided to proceed with the purchase of the home knowing that there were windows issues. Furthermore, Ms. [redacted], Knowing the information contained in the report regarding the windows, did not have her own contractor evaluate the windows, as was directed by the report, prior to closing on the home to determine what repairs were needed and the cost associated with those repairs (a right she has in purchasing a home).
Based on the fact that we found and reported window issues in the home, that Ms. [redacted] asked the sellers to repair/evaluate the windows as part of her response to the inspection, and that she did not do her own due diligence in finding out what she could be faced with in accepting the windows in the condition that they were in at the time of the inspection, Cornerstone is not willing to participate in any refund of fees or repairs to any window in the condo.
Sincerely
Randy [redacted] President/Inspector

I am writing this letter in response to a complaint received in our office on Monday 7-20-2015 from your office with the above ID#. The Complaint was submitted by [redacted] and is regarding the property located at [redacted]., Fishers, IN 46038 which was inspected by Cornerstone on...

February 18, 2015 by Kevin [redacted] (inspector for Cornerstone). I have the following response to Ms. [redacted]'s complaint:
We inspected the property in question on February 18, 2015 at 12:00PM and during the course of that inspection, there were several issues with windows observed and reported to Ms. [redacted] in the home inspection report. One of the comments reads that all the windows should be evaluated.
In a phone conversation with Ms. [redacted]'s Realtor, I was informed that Ms. [redacted] had asked the sellers, in her response to the inspection, to have all the window issues listed in the report addressed including having them evaluated. The seller declined that request and Ms. [redacted] decided to proceed with the purchase of the home knowing that there were windows issues. Furthermore, Ms. [redacted], Knowing the information contained in the report regarding the windows, did not have her own contractor evaluate the windows, as was directed by the report, prior to closing on the home to determine what repairs were needed and the cost associated with those repairs (a right she has in purchasing a home).
Based on the fact that we found and reported window issues in the home, that Ms. [redacted] asked the sellers to repair/evaluate the windows as part of her response to the inspection, and that she did not do her own due diligence in finding out what she could be faced with in accepting the windows in the condition that they were in at the time of the inspection, Cornerstone is not willing to participate in any refund of fees or repairs to any window in the condo.
Sincerely
Randy [redacted] President/Inspector

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Listing in the General Notes that the windows should be inspected does not lead to a sense of urgency that there is something significantly wrong.  The wood is ROTTED and there there is SPACE between the frames and the wall. That is not something you suggest be inspected - that is something you list as Critical and REQUIRE be inspected.  I want their license suspended/revoked.  Their attention to detail is horrendous, and they do not deserve to be in the industry. 
Regards,
[redacted]