Cougot's Chimney Service

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or 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
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted] Of course there were no indications of water penetration issues at the time of the inspectionThe problem had not become visible before the close of the saleIt was several weeks after the June 20, close, that water damage appeared on the inside wall on the East side of the house.The house was not vacant because workmen were doing projects inside the houseThey were there most daysMy wife, who was there checking on progress, noticed what appeared to be brown spotting on the wall which quickly grew into major wall damage.The wall was on the Eastern side of the house and spread into an area above the kitchen' Through our General Contractor, we secured ** [redacted] to determine the source of the leakThe roofer quickly spotted potential sources of the trouble on a part of the roof and the chimney in question.To deal with the chimney, we brought in [redacted] (their report is attached)When roof repairs did not solve the problem, we had [redacted] repair the chimney which stopped the leakAccording to the contractors, the chimney problems were visible to the naked eye.Because of the shorttime period after the purchase that the leak appeared, its extent, and the visible problems with the chimney, it is clear that this problem existed at the time of purchaseNaturally, the problem has been corrected, it could not be left to create further serious damage to the property.There were no intervening events between the purchase of the property, the discovery of the problem, and it's being dealt with

Dear Sir or Madam: I represent Cougot's Chimney Service (hereinafter referred to as "Cougot's"), and respectfully request that you accept...

this letter as my client's response to the above•referenced and numbered complaint filed with your office by [redacted]. The complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] is baseless and inaccurate. In November of 2014, Cougot's was asked to look at the fireplaces and chimneys at Mr. [redacted]'s home. Mr. [redacted] had informed Cougot's that he had noticed smoke and soot accumulating in the sitting room fireplace, which was not being regularly used. The family room fireplace, however, was more regularly used by the family. Upon inspection, it was determined that due to the adjacency of the fireplace flues in the same chimney, smoke and soot from the family room fireplace was being pulled back down into the sitting room fireplace. This issue was a result of the construction design of the house and its need to replenish air in an energy-efficient environment. Following that inspection, Cougot's made several recommendations regarding significant work that should be done by a professional chimney company, including a way to fix the smoke and soot backup problem. Those recommendations did not include repairing or replacing the flue liners in the two fireplaces in question. Cougot's was not contracted to perform any of the work that was recommended, and has no knowledge to suggest that any of the recommendations were followed. In September of2015, Cougot's was hired by potential purchasers of the same house to inspect all chimneys and fireplaces. Cougot' s performed an inspection of the fireplaces using a video inspection system that is common in the industry. Prior to inserting the video system into the fireplace flue, each flue is checked for obstructions that could impede the path of the camera. Upon visual inspection, Cougot's noticed clean orange flue tile towards the bottom of the flue, which had at one time been covered by a mortar joint. Mortar joints are required by code, and are used to bind flue tiles together and to prevent the escape of combustion products from the flue. During the video inspection of both flues, Cougot's discovered missing mortar joints. Given the missing mortar joints, the flues were determined to violate four (4) building codes and Cougot's was required to recommend that repairs be made to both flues. Per company protocol, Cougot' s included photographs of the damaged areas, the applicable building codes and the recommended repairs in the inspection report it prepared. Copies of the report were provided to both the potential purchaser as well as Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] subsequently contacted Cougot's about its findings and report. My client again explained the basis for its findings and recommendations over the telephone to Mr. [redacted], but was then told that he would be seeking a second opinion. Cougot's offered to meet Mr. [redacted] and any reputable chimney inspection company of his choosing at the house to conduct the video inspection again to show where the damage was found. Despite being willing to do this at no cost, Cougot's never received a response to this offer. Cougot's is aware that at least two subsequent inspections were done by other companies. The second inspection generated a report that only indicated that the flue liners were intact. It made no reference to the damaged mortar joints between the flue liners found by Cougot's during video inspection. Cougot's received a copy of this report, and can provide a copy if necessary. It should be noted that the company that performed this inspection does not have a certification from the Chimney Safety Institute of America as Cougot's does. While Cougot's believes that a third inspection was performed, it was given neither the name of the company nor a copy of the inspection report that was generated. As is consistent with its professional responsibility and industry reputation, Cougot's identified, photographed and recommended repair to four building code violations in the fireplace flues of Mr. [redacted]. Cougot's cannot be made responsible for issues that arose during the ten months between inspections. My client offered to return to the property and conduct the video inspection again at no cost to the homeowner so they could view the damage together. This opportunity was never taken by Mr. [redacted]. My client denies any impropriety and stands by its findings. Very truly yours, [redacted]

Dear Sir or Madam: I represent Cougot's Chimney Service (hereinafter referred to as "Cougot's"), and respectfully request that you accept this letter as my client's response to the above•referenced and numbered complaint filed with your office by [redacted]. The complaint filed...

by Mr. [redacted] is baseless and inaccurate. In November of 2014, Cougot's was asked to look at the fireplaces and chimneys at Mr. [redacted]'s home. Mr. [redacted] had informed Cougot's that he had noticed smoke and soot accumulating in the sitting room fireplace, which was not being regularly used. The family room fireplace, however, was more regularly used by the family. Upon inspection, it was determined that due to the adjacency of the fireplace flues in the same chimney, smoke and soot from the family room fireplace was being pulled back down into the sitting room fireplace. This issue was a result of the construction design of the house and its need to replenish air in an energy-efficient environment. Following that inspection, Cougot's made several recommendations regarding significant work that should be done by a professional chimney company, including a way to fix the smoke and soot backup problem. Those recommendations did not include repairing or replacing the flue liners in the two fireplaces in question. Cougot's was not contracted to perform any of the work that was recommended, and has no knowledge to suggest that any of the recommendations were followed. In September of2015, Cougot's was hired by potential purchasers of the same house to inspect all chimneys and fireplaces. Cougot' s performed an inspection of the fireplaces using a video inspection system that is common in the industry. Prior to inserting the video system into the fireplace flue, each flue is checked for obstructions that could impede the path of the camera. Upon visual inspection, Cougot's noticed clean orange flue tile towards the bottom of the flue, which had at one time been covered by a mortar joint. Mortar joints are required by code, and are used to bind flue tiles together and to prevent the escape of combustion products from the flue. During the video inspection of both flues, Cougot's discovered missing mortar joints. Given the missing mortar joints, the flues were determined to violate four (4) building codes and Cougot's was required to recommend that repairs be made to both flues. Per company protocol, Cougot' s included photographs of the damaged areas, the applicable building codes and the recommended repairs in the inspection report it prepared. Copies of the report were provided to both the potential purchaser as well as Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] subsequently contacted Cougot's about its findings and report. My client again explained the basis for its findings and recommendations over the telephone to Mr. [redacted], but was then told that he would be seeking a second opinion. Cougot's offered to meet Mr. [redacted] and any reputable chimney inspection company of his choosing at the house to conduct the video inspection again to show where the damage was found. Despite being willing to do this at no cost, Cougot's never received a response to this offer. Cougot's is aware that at least two subsequent inspections were done by other companies. The second inspection generated a report that only indicated that the flue liners were intact. It made no reference to the damaged mortar joints between the flue liners found by Cougot's during video inspection. Cougot's received a copy of this report, and can provide a copy if necessary. It should be noted that the company that performed this inspection does not have a certification from the Chimney Safety Institute of America as Cougot's does. While Cougot's believes that a third inspection was performed, it was given neither the name of the company nor a copy of the inspection report that was generated. As is consistent with its professional responsibility and industry reputation, Cougot's identified, photographed and recommended repair to four building code violations in the fireplace flues of Mr. [redacted]. Cougot's cannot be made responsible for issues that arose during the ten months between inspections. My client offered to return to the property and conduct the video inspection again at no cost to the homeowner so they could view the damage together. This opportunity was never taken by Mr. [redacted]. My client denies any impropriety and stands by its findings. Very truly yours, [redacted]

Review: When we purchased our home in August of 2014 we had them out to do fireplace inspections (was done Nov 2014). We needed to move in Aug of 2015 and the buyer had them out to do another inspection.

When they came through in Nov 2014 they inspected two chimneys and gave the all clear that there are no issues, except for some minor stuff.

When they came back through Aug of 2015 for the buyer, they now stated that both Chimneys are have major gaps between the joints and two flu liners need to be added. One of the two Chimneys we NEVER used. The house is only 7 or so years old built by a very reputable high end builder in Richmond.

When I called the owner to speak with him about this, he mentioned that when he did his video inspection he could see "orange" which is the terra-cotta and that means it has cracked and crumbled, according to him. But when he sends his report, pictures and outline, he fails to mention "orange" or anything to this effect. He only shows pictures that are massively blown up to misrepresent gaps.

So with this information, we need to get a second opinion just to make sure. If they do in fact need to be replaced, its a must do to keep my family safe. So we get another Chimney Sweep company to come out. They do their video inspection and we watch the results on site when he is done. He sees NOTHING wrong on either. So now we have two conflicting reports, so we get a third. They again go through and video inspect both and find nothing of substance except it needs a cleaning, which we know about.

This cost me approx $6,500 at closing as a creditDesired Settlement: I would like to be compensated for the credit that I had to give the buyer at closing.

Business

Response:

Dear Sir or Madam: I represent Cougot's Chimney Service (hereinafter referred to as "Cougot's"), and respectfully request that you accept this letter as my client's response to the above•referenced and numbered complaint filed with your office by [redacted]. The complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] is baseless and inaccurate. In November of 2014, Cougot's was asked to look at the fireplaces and chimneys at Mr. [redacted]'s home. Mr. [redacted] had informed Cougot's that he had noticed smoke and soot accumulating in the sitting room fireplace, which was not being regularly used. The family room fireplace, however, was more regularly used by the family. Upon inspection, it was determined that due to the adjacency of the fireplace flues in the same chimney, smoke and soot from the family room fireplace was being pulled back down into the sitting room fireplace. This issue was a result of the construction design of the house and its need to replenish air in an energy-efficient environment. Following that inspection, Cougot's made several recommendations regarding significant work that should be done by a professional chimney company, including a way to fix the smoke and soot backup problem. Those recommendations did not include repairing or replacing the flue liners in the two fireplaces in question. Cougot's was not contracted to perform any of the work that was recommended, and has no knowledge to suggest that any of the recommendations were followed. In September of2015, Cougot's was hired by potential purchasers of the same house to inspect all chimneys and fireplaces. Cougot' s performed an inspection of the fireplaces using a video inspection system that is common in the industry. Prior to inserting the video system into the fireplace flue, each flue is checked for obstructions that could impede the path of the camera. Upon visual inspection, Cougot's noticed clean orange flue tile towards the bottom of the flue, which had at one time been covered by a mortar joint. Mortar joints are required by code, and are used to bind flue tiles together and to prevent the escape of combustion products from the flue. During the video inspection of both flues, Cougot's discovered missing mortar joints. Given the missing mortar joints, the flues were determined to violate four (4) building codes and Cougot's was required to recommend that repairs be made to both flues. Per company protocol, Cougot' s included photographs of the damaged areas, the applicable building codes and the recommended repairs in the inspection report it prepared. Copies of the report were provided to both the potential purchaser as well as Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] subsequently contacted Cougot's about its findings and report. My client again explained the basis for its findings and recommendations over the telephone to Mr. [redacted], but was then told that he would be seeking a second opinion. Cougot's offered to meet Mr. [redacted] and any reputable chimney inspection company of his choosing at the house to conduct the video inspection again to show where the damage was found. Despite being willing to do this at no cost, Cougot's never received a response to this offer. Cougot's is aware that at least two subsequent inspections were done by other companies. The second inspection generated a report that only indicated that the flue liners were intact. It made no reference to the damaged mortar joints between the flue liners found by Cougot's during video inspection. Cougot's received a copy of this report, and can provide a copy if necessary. It should be noted that the company that performed this inspection does not have a certification from the Chimney Safety Institute of America as Cougot's does. While Cougot's believes that a third inspection was performed, it was given neither the name of the company nor a copy of the inspection report that was generated. As is consistent with its professional responsibility and industry reputation, Cougot's identified, photographed and recommended repair to four building code violations in the fireplace flues of Mr. [redacted]. Cougot's cannot be made responsible for issues that arose during the ten months between inspections. My client offered to return to the property and conduct the video inspection again at no cost to the homeowner so they could view the damage together. This opportunity was never taken by Mr. [redacted]. My client denies any impropriety and stands by its findings. Very truly yours, [redacted]

I would not trust this company. I called them to Clean my Chimney and Gas Logs and they sent a young man out who removed all my logs and then told me they were not installed correctly and changed the way they were in my fireplace. Now we cannot use our fireplace without it setting off our smoke detecter. When I called the Company about it they refused to do anything about it and told me they were not Liscensed for Gas Logs. Yet they had no problem taking my money and changing the configuration of my logs as if they knew what they were doing. Now I have to find a Company that can fix the problem at another cost to me. Don't be fooled like I was.