Countywide Property Inspections

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 [I am content with the dollar refund that is being offered by Countywide Propery Inspections Included is the portion of the report that should have addressed cracks and or repairs of cracks, let it be noted that Countywide seperates its subsystems i.eFoundations, Interior Rooms, Roofs etc: Initial Comment - INFORMATIONAL: This residence has a raised foundationThe foundation was constructed of poured concrete footingGeneral Sub-Floor Finding- DEFICIENT: There was some efflorescence observed on the surface of the foundation stem walls Efflorescence is a white looking powder which forms on cement concrete and masonry surfaces (and sometime soils) if moisture is migrating through the stem wallAllowed to continue efflorescence will eventually deteriorate and may disintegrate the concrete/masonry foundation stem wall materialThe most common offender is improper lot drainage - NOT INSPECTED: Due to an undersized access opening, the inspector was not able to enter nor inspect the crawlspaceBecause we cannot be responsible for what we cannot see, we recommend that you await more favorable conditions in order that the foundation system can be entered and evaluated by an appropriately qualified specialist for further remarks and recommendationsAll inspection was done through vents The comment regarding having a structural engineer inspect the interior rooms was located in the sub system INTERIOR ROOMS.: General Comments - INFORMATIONAL: All visible components and systems of the entry way were inspected (floor, walls, ceiling, electrical, fixtures, windows, doors) and found to be in satisfactory condition with the exception of the deficient items listed below Walls - DEFICIENT: There are cracks in one or more walls of this room that are in excess of 1/8" in width that could be structurally significant; for this reason, further evaluation is warrantedWe recommend that the evaluation be conducted by a qualified engineer Ceiling General Comments - INFORMATIONAL: All visible components and systems of the entry way were inspected (floor, walls, ceiling, electrical, fixtures, windows, doors) and found to be in satisfactory condition with the exception of the deficient items listed below Wall - DEFICIENT: There are cracks in one or more walls of this room that are in excess of 1/8" in width that could be structurally significant; for this reason, further evaluation is warrantedWe recommend that the evaluation be conducted by a qualified engineer The inspector was very thorough in his inspection but the possibility exist that he may have had a lapse in concentration by not reporting the very obvious repairs made to the stem wallAfter all the day was a hot summers day that would cause anyone to cut corners and in this case perhaps overlooking the repairs and cracks on the stem wall and making note that gutters were present in the final report] Regards, [redacted]

As a final comment, the generally accepted "rule of thumb" is that an inspection typically takes about one hour per every thousand square feet of the home (verifiable via a [redacted] search)The subject mobile home was small - just over square feet, meaning our inspector spent the usual and customary amount of time to inspect it Whatever is the reason your 2nd inspector spent more than twice the usual amount of time to do his inspection has no bearing whatsoever on the competency and thoroughness of the inspection Countywide performedWhat is relevant to the issue is (i) our inspector's level of expertise - he is among the few in San Diego who has reached the level of a CREIA "Master Inspector" and (ii) that our inspector's flagging over deficiencies with the mobile home hardly suggests his inspection was performed in a cursory or superficial manner Nonetheless, our offer to refund your inspection fee will always remain open should you ever change your mind

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 [Countywide is not taking responsibility for their substandard inspection the soft floor it wasn't in the inspection report but now Mr [redacted] is saying that it was carpet and they can't inspect, that at his reinspection, I seemed to agree with him which is not the case I had a second inspection and the inspector did the inspection in hours and minutes, he was under the mobilehome and asked me to turn water in kitchen sink,bathroom sinks and both bathroomsMr [redacted] inspection lasted only hour and minutesthat show how fast he did the inspectionCountywide inspection was substandard and negligent Regards, [redacted]

)n 05/13/I used Countywide to perform my home inspection and I relied on the expertise of home inspector *** *** for my inspection, I've purchased the mobile home based on this inspectionOn 06/10/I've received the keys and I've found that in the master bathtub under a thin rubber mat the bathtub is significant damaged ,cracking and full of moldIn the hallway bathroom the floor is very soft and moisture damaged On 06/14/Countywide president *** *** re-inspected the master bathtub and soft flooring and asked for me to send him invoice with estimated cost for repairThe estimate was $ for the bathtub On 06/15/Mr .*** give a letter that they refuse to pay for repairsOn the 05/13/inspection report was no mention about the thin rubber mat in the master bathtub or the soft flooring in the other bathroomOn 06/21/I had another home inspection by *** *** *** and I've pay $After this inspection I've find that

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
[Countywide, I did not accept the stated resolutionFor some reason the message was misread but I did submit that I am not content with resolution.]
Regards,
*** ***

As a final comment, the generally accepted "rule of thumb" is that an inspection typically takes about one hour per every thousand square feet of the home (verifiable via a [redacted] search). The subject mobile home was small - just over 1000 square feet, meaning our inspector spent the usual and customary amount of time to inspect it.  Whatever is the reason your 2nd inspector spent more than twice the usual amount of time to do his inspection has no bearing whatsoever on the competency and thoroughness of the inspection Countywide performed. What is relevant to the issue is (i) our inspector's level of expertise - he is among the few in San Diego who has reached the level of a CREIA "Master Inspector" and (ii) that our inspector's flagging over 44 deficiencies with the mobile home hardly suggests his inspection was performed in a cursory or superficial manner.  Nonetheless, our offer to refund your inspection fee will always remain open should you ever change your mind.

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.
[Countywide is not taking responsibility for their substandard inspection the soft floor it wasn't in the inspection report but now Mr. [redacted] is saying that it was carpet and they can't inspect, that at his reinspection, I seemed to agree with him which is not the case  . I had a second inspection and the inspector did the inspection in 2 hours and 30 minutes, he was under the mobilehome and asked me to turn water in kitchen sink,bathroom sinks and both bathrooms. Mr. [redacted] inspection lasted only 1 hour and 15 minutes. that show how fast he did the inspection. Countywide inspection was substandard and negligent.
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.
[I am content with the 315 dollar refund that is being offered by Countywide Propery Inspections.
 
Included is the portion of the report that should have addressed cracks and or repairs of cracks, let it be noted that Countywide seperates its subsystems i.e. Foundations, Interior Rooms, Roofs etc. :
 
Initial
Comment2.1
- INFORMATIONAL: This residence has a raised foundation. The foundation was
constructed of poured concrete footingGeneral Sub-Floor Finding2.2 - DEFICIENT:
There was
some efflorescence observed on the surface of the foundation stem walls.
Efflorescence is a white looking powder which forms on cement concrete and
masonry surfaces (and sometime soils) if moisture is migrating through the stem
wall. Allowed to continue efflorescence will eventually deteriorate and may
disintegrate the concrete/masonry foundation stem wall material. The most
common offender is improper lot drainage.
2.3 - NOT
INSPECTED: Due to an undersized access opening, the inspector was not able to
enter nor inspect the crawlspace. Because we cannot be responsible for what we
cannot see, we recommend that you await more favorable conditions in order that
the foundation system can be entered and evaluated by an appropriately
qualified specialist for further remarks and recommendations. All inspection
was done through vents.
The comment
regarding having a structural engineer inspect the interior rooms was located
in the sub system INTERIOR ROOMS.:
General
Comments
11.1 -
INFORMATIONAL: All visible components and systems of the entry way were
inspected (floor, walls, ceiling, electrical, fixtures, windows, doors) and
found to be in satisfactory condition with the exception of the  deficient items
listed below.
Walls
11.2
- DEFICIENT:
There are
cracks in one or more walls of this room that are in excess of 1/8" in width
that could be structurally significant; for this reason, further evaluation is
warranted. We recommend that the evaluation be conducted by a qualified
engineer.
Ceiling General
Comments
11.1 -
INFORMATIONAL: All visible components and systems of the entry way were
inspected (floor, walls, ceiling, electrical, fixtures, windows, doors) and
found to be in satisfactory condition with the exception of the deficient items listed below.
Wall
11.2
- DEFICIENT:
There are cracks in
one or more walls of this room that are in excess of 1/8" in width that
could be structurally significant; for this reason, further evaluation is
warranted. We recommend that the evaluation be conducted by a qualified
engineer.
The inspector was very thorough in his inspection but the possibility exist that he may have had a lapse in concentration by not reporting the very obvious repairs made to the stem wall. After all the day was a hot summers day that would cause anyone to cut corners and in this case perhaps overlooking the repairs and cracks on the stem wall and making note that gutters were present in the final report. ]
Regards,
[redacted]

Per the client's acceptance of the refund offer, a full refund shall be issued.  Please understand that this is a gesture of good will and is in fulfillment of Countywide's customer service objectives.  It should not be viewed as an express or tacit admission of negligence or wrongdoing on the part of our inspector or the company.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter.

Countywide regrets that the client/home buyer has incurred
or will incur foundation repair costs that he did not expect to incur when he
purchased the home.  However, we  differ with the client’s recital of the facts
in the strongest terms.    A year after the inspection, the client
contacted my company about his discovery of some cracks in the foundation stem
wall.  As the owner of Countywide, I met
with the client along with our inspector who conducted the original inspection (who is one of the few "Master CREIA Inspectors" in San Diego).  At the conclusion of the meeting, I politely
explained to the client the following: 
(i) that the foundation cracks were not visually apparent at the time of
the inspection a year earlier (and possibly concealed by patch material and/or
vegetation if they did exist); (ii) that Countywide did flag and report at the time of the
original inspection an unusually large, atypical crack in the living room and that
because of this finding, the inspector’s report
recommended the Client have a structural engineer evaluate the home prior to
close of escrow.   No less compelling
is that our inspector verbally informed the client at the time of the
inspection that he certainly could not rule out foundation issues as causing such an
unusually large crack;  (iii) additionally,
Countywide’s report recommended further evaluation of the foundation stem walls
due to finding effloresence (causes deterioration of stem walls);  (iv) additionally, Countywide’s report recommended
further evaluation of the foundation stem walls from finding that the framing was
not bolted to the stem walls; (v) Countywide’s report also stated that because
the access opening to the crawl space area was too small to allow an inspection
of the foundation system, that the client
needs a foundation specialist to inspect the foundation prior to purchase.    Unfortunately, the Client proceeded to
close escrow without following any of Countywide’s written and verbal recommendations
for a structural engineer’s and foundation specialist’s further evaluation of the
problems flagged with this almost 100 year old home and foundation.
Again, Countywide regrets that the client
faces repair costs; but there can be no dispute about the fact that had the client followed Countywide’s admonitions and
recommendations before going through with the purchase, he would not now be
regretting his purchase;  similarly the
client would not now be placing blame at the foot of his inspector for his inexplicable
indifference to the inspector’s advice to have the flagged problems with the
home and foundation evaluated before purchase.
Following our meeting, I wrote to the client and provided him with
referrals to foundation repair contractors. 
My letter also offered to assist him in any efforts he might undertake
to secure the repair of his foundation.  
I received no response to my letter over the ensuing 18 months.  Consistent with Countywide’s satisfaction
guarantee policy, and particularly in light of the client’s appreciated service
to his Country, we offer a complete refund of his inspection fee.

Review: On or about 7/2011, I ordered an inspection of a home that I wanted to purchase. Inspector [redacted] arrived at the home and began inspecting the home. During the inspection, I inquired to [redacted] if the large crack on the front porch was indicative of a problem with the foundation. [redacted] informed me that the large crack in the front porch was signs of uneven settling but was not indicative of foundation problems, as the porch was not part of the foundation. [redacted] completed his inspection and departed. I purchased the home in 08/2011 and was happy with the home.

Several months later, a contractor who was working on the house next door, knocked on my door. He asked me if I was interested in getting an estimate on the cracks on my stem wall. At this time I had not notice any cracks in the stem wall. As I spoke to the contractor, he began to point out cracks and previously repaired joints in the stem wall. I asked the contractor if this was an issue since it was not noted on my home inspection. He stated that any inspector would have noted it in the home inspection as the cracks and evidence of repair were easily visible from outside the home. I contacted Countywide Inspections and requested to speak to the inspector [redacted], but he was unavailable. The representative asked for my number and had someone call me back and setup a meeting at my house several days later.

On the day of our meeting, [redacted] and another Countywide Inspection representative arrived. The other representative turned out to be legal counsel for Countywide Inspection. During the conversation that followed, I addressed my main concern. I was very worried about cracks in the stem wall and why they were never mentioned during the home inspection I received on the day of the inspection or on the follow up report.

The lawyer informed me that cracks could not be reported on the report because the stem wall was only accessible through the crawl space which [redacted] had deemed unsafe. At this time, I walked [redacted] and the lawyer around the outside of the house and pointed out the evidence of cracks which had not been reported in the report.

The lawyer proceeded to tell me that they were absolved of any negligence for not identifying those cracks because in a section of the report labeled, “ceilings,” they had made the suggestion that I have the ceiling evaluated by a structural engineer to see if the structure was sound. The lawyer also refuted my assertions that if I had known of the cracks on the foundation I would not have purchased the home. Lastly the point was made that the cracks, though visible, were not in an immediate concern as the stem wall could be in acceptable condition and meet all the standards of the material.

Countywide Inspection states that they will identify: “B. A material defect is a condition that significantly affects the value, desirability, habitability, or safety of the building. Style or aesthetics shall not be considered in determining whether a specific system, structure, or component is defective…”

Several days later I was mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and several weeks later deployed to Afghanistan. At that time I did not pursue additional legal action as my time in the United States was limited.Desired Settlement: I would like Countywide Property Inspections to replace the stem walls of the property.

Business

Response: