This could of been resolved if the inspector did not neglect to inform me of the layersBy this negligence it did not allow me to have the opportunity to address this with the sellerAs far as the roof needs to be repaired you are completely wrongI have had [redacted] come out and every board in the attic had percent humidity measured by thier moisture gaugeThis meaning the roof has been leaking for yearsAdditionally mold has been found in the attic a dead giveaway that this issue was there for some time and should of been brought upThe attic was completely accessible at the time of inspection but due to neglect of the inspector much was missedI have attached a picture of the other side of the house so you can see how bad this was leaking and this does not happen overnightThe inspection company is more than at fault for this as they should of done what I paid for and not a thing lessThe inspectors negligence has caused me severe financial burden that can not be undone Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Sincerely, [redacted]
[redacted] Inspection Service
This is our second response to Mr[redacted]'s complaint: Mr[redacted] has
accused us of misrepresenting the facts, and we believe he is trying to get us to pay for his new roof, where his roof is older but functioningThe
issue rests on whether or not our report provided him with information that
would have prevented further problems for him, which it doesOur inspection report
is compartmentalizedA view of the roof from the exterior showed that the roof
was old enough (years, original roof) to be monitored. We define why monitoring is recommended: ‘Monitoring
will typically be recommended if the system or component is potentially near
end of service life or functioning is marginal'
There was evidence of a possible water issue noted on the
interior of the house on the first floor ceiling. The inspection was not done during the rain
so we could not tell if this was an issue that was current or whether it had
been repaired. Our report noted and
recommended how to be more certain:
While it is possible that the cause has been repaired and
stains left; this cannot be guaranteed.
Current weather conditions may not produce actual conditions that caused
these stains. If available, sellers can
be questioned to obtain history; however, only further evaluation or documented
proof of repair by a qualified contractor can more fully determine if the cause
of the stain has been rectified. If
repairs have been adequately represented the staining should be painted over
with a stain-killing paint and then monitored
Mr[redacted] chose to accept from the seller that corrections had
been made, without obtaining documented proof, or getting further evaluation as
our report suggests. He either ignored
the comments, or did not carefully read his inspection reportThis is one
reason why we always prefer the client to be present and accompany the inspector
while he is inspecting, and then carefully read the written report that
follows, and attend to the recommendations
This could of been resolved if the inspector did not neglect to inform me of the 3 layers. By this negligence it did not allow me to have the opportunity to address this with the seller. As far as the roof needs to be repaired you are completely wrong. I have had [redacted] come out and every board in the attic had 100 percent humidity measured by thier moisture gauge. This meaning the roof has been leaking for years. Additionally mold has been found in the attic a dead giveaway that this issue was there for some time and should of been brought up. The attic was completely accessible at the time of inspection but due to neglect of the inspector much was missed. I have attached a picture of the other side of the house so you can see how bad this was leaking and this does not happen overnight. The inspection company is more than at fault for this as they should of done what I paid for and not a thing less. The inspectors negligence has caused me severe financial burden that can not be undone
Complaint:[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Schaefer Inspection Service
Dear[redacted],This is in response to complaint from:
[redacted]
ID #[redacted]
It is unfortunate when a
deficiency is found in a home after an inspection. Our inspectors begin each inspection
appointment introducing themselves and explain the scope and limitations of the
inspection, and ask the client to sign our agreement based upon their
understanding that the inspector evaluates all areas that are accessible and
visibleHowever, home inspections are not technically exhaustive and there are
limitations to what a home inspector can do.
The state of Connecticut's regulations dictate what is and is not the
responsibility of a home inspector. In
this case, the issues noted by our client were not foreseeable and/or are not
required of a home inspector
Our business owner who is also one
of our licensed inspectors as well as the inspector who performed the
inspection on this home made an appointment with the homeowner and went to the
home to view the complaint with herThe following is our response to the
complaint based upon our review and finding:
Below are excerpts from the
Connecticut regulations for what is required of a home inspector
"The inspector shall inspect the
roof covering; the roof drainage systems; the flashings; the skylights,
chimneys, and roof penetrations. The
inspector shall describe the
roof covering and report the methods used to inspect the roof."
·
As
required, the inspector inspected and described the method of inspection as
viewing it from the ground and walking portions of the roof. It should be noted that inspectors are not
required to walk roofs at all
·
The
report notes the description of the roof coverings as required as Architectural
asphalt shingles and roll.
·
The
inspector is not required to estimate the age of the roof; however, he did make
an attempt to do this to help put in perspective the possible current age as compared
to what manufacturers represent as a life span
·
If a
roofing material is near the end of its service life, the inspector is required
to note this and recommend monitoring.
The inspector made this recommendation in the report based on the age of
the roll roofing where the issue exists.
He would have recommended correction if there had been evidence to show
the roof was likely to leak during rain.
The cause of the leak was not readily accessible and therefore, the leak
was not foreseeable (see below)
·
The
inspector is not required to report how many layers of roofing material are on
a roof However, the inspector did
attempt to do this by noting that there was two layers and they would have to
be removed the next time the roof was replaced.
It is not always possible to distinguish between two or three roof
layers. We believe our inspector went
the extra mile by noting two layers rather than not noting them at all. The third layer that has been reported to be
present has not caused a deficiency to the home and would not be practical to
remove it before the roof material needed replacement
Regarding the leak in the
roof. The following sections of the
Connecticut regulations for home inspectors apply
·
"The
inspector shall inspect
readily accessible systems and components"
·
"The
inspector is not required to determine the following:
o "Future conditions, including, but not
limited to, failure of systems or components;"
·
"The inspector is not required to identify
concealed conditions or latent defects."
On the day of the inspection, it
was not raining. The components that
allowed leakage were not visible (readily accessible)They were the under
layers of roof material and flashing.
This would make the cause of the leakage due to non-readily accessible
components, and since it was not raining, it falls into the category of a
latent defect
This is a roof that currently
needs a repair, not a full replacement.
We regret that such a repair is needed, but it was one of those types of
deficiencies that could not be discovered within the scope of the inspection as
dictated by the State regulations. It is
our opinion that our inspector fulfilled his responsibility to our client in
accordance with the state of Connecticut regulations for home inspectors
Our business owner who is one of
our inspectors himself and the inspector who performed the inspection on this
home made an appointment with the homeowner and went to the home to view the
complaint with her
Thank you for your thorough review
of this matter
This could of been resolved if the inspector did not neglect to inform me of the layersBy this negligence it did not allow me to have the opportunity to address this with the sellerAs far as the roof needs to be repaired you are completely wrongI have had [redacted] come out and every board in the attic had percent humidity measured by thier moisture gaugeThis meaning the roof has been leaking for yearsAdditionally mold has been found in the attic a dead giveaway that this issue was there for some time and should of been brought upThe attic was completely accessible at the time of inspection but due to neglect of the inspector much was missedI have attached a picture of the other side of the house so you can see how bad this was leaking and this does not happen overnightThe inspection company is more than at fault for this as they should of done what I paid for and not a thing lessThe inspectors negligence has caused me severe financial burden that can not be undone Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Sincerely, [redacted]
[redacted] Inspection Service
This is our second response to Mr[redacted]'s complaint: Mr[redacted] has
accused us of misrepresenting the facts, and we believe he is trying to get us to pay for his new roof, where his roof is older but functioningThe
issue rests on whether or not our report provided him with information that
would have prevented further problems for him, which it doesOur inspection report
is compartmentalizedA view of the roof from the exterior showed that the roof
was old enough (years, original roof) to be monitored. We define why monitoring is recommended: ‘Monitoring
will typically be recommended if the system or component is potentially near
end of service life or functioning is marginal'
There was evidence of a possible water issue noted on the
interior of the house on the first floor ceiling. The inspection was not done during the rain
so we could not tell if this was an issue that was current or whether it had
been repaired. Our report noted and
recommended how to be more certain:
While it is possible that the cause has been repaired and
stains left; this cannot be guaranteed.
Current weather conditions may not produce actual conditions that caused
these stains. If available, sellers can
be questioned to obtain history; however, only further evaluation or documented
proof of repair by a qualified contractor can more fully determine if the cause
of the stain has been rectified. If
repairs have been adequately represented the staining should be painted over
with a stain-killing paint and then monitored
Mr[redacted] chose to accept from the seller that corrections had
been made, without obtaining documented proof, or getting further evaluation as
our report suggests. He either ignored
the comments, or did not carefully read his inspection reportThis is one
reason why we always prefer the client to be present and accompany the inspector
while he is inspecting, and then carefully read the written report that
follows, and attend to the recommendations
This could of been resolved if the inspector did not neglect to inform me of the 3 layers. By this negligence it did not allow me to have the opportunity to address this with the seller. As far as the roof needs to be repaired you are completely wrong. I have had [redacted] come out and every board in the attic had 100 percent humidity measured by thier moisture gauge. This meaning the roof has been leaking for years. Additionally mold has been found in the attic a dead giveaway that this issue was there for some time and should of been brought up. The attic was completely accessible at the time of inspection but due to neglect of the inspector much was missed. I have attached a picture of the other side of the house so you can see how bad this was leaking and this does not happen overnight. The inspection company is more than at fault for this as they should of done what I paid for and not a thing less. The inspectors negligence has caused me severe financial burden that can not be undone
Complaint:[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Schaefer Inspection Service
Dear[redacted],This is in response to complaint from:
[redacted]
ID #[redacted]
It is unfortunate when a
deficiency is found in a home after an inspection. Our inspectors begin each inspection
appointment introducing themselves and explain the scope and limitations of the
inspection, and ask the client to sign our agreement based upon their
understanding that the inspector evaluates all areas that are accessible and
visibleHowever, home inspections are not technically exhaustive and there are
limitations to what a home inspector can do.
The state of Connecticut's regulations dictate what is and is not the
responsibility of a home inspector. In
this case, the issues noted by our client were not foreseeable and/or are not
required of a home inspector
Our business owner who is also one
of our licensed inspectors as well as the inspector who performed the
inspection on this home made an appointment with the homeowner and went to the
home to view the complaint with herThe following is our response to the
complaint based upon our review and finding:
Below are excerpts from the
Connecticut regulations for what is required of a home inspector
"The inspector shall inspect the
roof covering; the roof drainage systems; the flashings; the skylights,
chimneys, and roof penetrations. The
inspector shall describe the
roof covering and report the methods used to inspect the roof."
·
As
required, the inspector inspected and described the method of inspection as
viewing it from the ground and walking portions of the roof. It should be noted that inspectors are not
required to walk roofs at all
·
The
report notes the description of the roof coverings as required as Architectural
asphalt shingles and roll.
·
The
inspector is not required to estimate the age of the roof; however, he did make
an attempt to do this to help put in perspective the possible current age as compared
to what manufacturers represent as a life span
·
If a
roofing material is near the end of its service life, the inspector is required
to note this and recommend monitoring.
The inspector made this recommendation in the report based on the age of
the roll roofing where the issue exists.
He would have recommended correction if there had been evidence to show
the roof was likely to leak during rain.
The cause of the leak was not readily accessible and therefore, the leak
was not foreseeable (see below)
·
The
inspector is not required to report how many layers of roofing material are on
a roof However, the inspector did
attempt to do this by noting that there was two layers and they would have to
be removed the next time the roof was replaced.
It is not always possible to distinguish between two or three roof
layers. We believe our inspector went
the extra mile by noting two layers rather than not noting them at all. The third layer that has been reported to be
present has not caused a deficiency to the home and would not be practical to
remove it before the roof material needed replacement
Regarding the leak in the
roof. The following sections of the
Connecticut regulations for home inspectors apply
·
"The
inspector shall inspect
readily accessible systems and components"
·
"The
inspector is not required to determine the following:
o "Future conditions, including, but not
limited to, failure of systems or components;"
·
"The inspector is not required to identify
concealed conditions or latent defects."
On the day of the inspection, it
was not raining. The components that
allowed leakage were not visible (readily accessible)They were the under
layers of roof material and flashing.
This would make the cause of the leakage due to non-readily accessible
components, and since it was not raining, it falls into the category of a
latent defect
This is a roof that currently
needs a repair, not a full replacement.
We regret that such a repair is needed, but it was one of those types of
deficiencies that could not be discovered within the scope of the inspection as
dictated by the State regulations. It is
our opinion that our inspector fulfilled his responsibility to our client in
accordance with the state of Connecticut regulations for home inspectors
Our business owner who is one of
our inspectors himself and the inspector who performed the inspection on this
home made an appointment with the homeowner and went to the home to view the
complaint with her
Thank you for your thorough review
of this matter