Due Diligence, LLC

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] In response to the first paragraph stating "moisture identified at the light switch migrated from the brittle, loose cracked missing shingle on the homes roof"Got you on that oneYou never knew about the water coming out of the light switch panel other than me calling you after your inspectionI have a witness when you were out to observe what you failed to find in your inspection or document and pictures showing water leaking from out of itAlso the shingles were not missing it was leaking from under the valleyYou also told me and my witness you performed a moisture testWhere is that in your report? As for garage door opener, once again the professional who repaired the garage door cable told me "the loosely hanging chain from the opener should have been caught by your inspector to see that it would cause problems so that it could be put in a contingency to the seller"I have that in writing by Blando Door Company who made the repairs saying your negligent inspection failed to see an over laying problem.I'm glad this will be posted on the Revdex.com site against Due Dilligence which is represented by inspector Jeffrey ***I would like to warn the future home buyer/buyer's out there who is in need of an inspector to stay away from this inspectorBeware of substandard service performed by this man who is to big of a man to go on a roof or in an attic to do an inspection thoroughly because of his sizeHe gives quality home inspectors a bad name because of his lack of doing a thorough inspectionIf he performed his inspection correct he would stand behind it without offering anythingInstead an admission of wrong and guilt by offering $towards a mold testingOn top of that he wants a release signed by me releasing him of all harm from his inspectionHe knows darn well he is very guilty of not performing all of his inspection to the fullestHe has over looked MANY things that should have been caught and documented in his inspection so that I could have put that in a contingency to the sellersI will not release him of harm by signing anythingI am seeking from him my full refund of $for not catching everything he should haveA simple full refund of the home inspection that wasn't performed as it should have would not have caused me to file a complaint with several agenciesHis license is currently in the process of being questioned by the stateGood luck future home buyers, this inspector is by far the worse I have came across Regards, Cindy [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Upon reading the response by Jeffrey he lied with saying he left the inspection at 2pmI had my work print out a copy of my work hours for the day which I was at work at 1:57pmMy realtor and I left at 1:25pm and he left at 1:15pmThis man is very untruthfulNext there is no mention on my part in this complaint about the roof being badMy complaint is about water coming through a light switch panel which was a life or death situation for electrical fire which he failed to find in his inspection and has put myself and my kids lives at riskI have pictures of water stains clearly coming from light switch panel that was neglected in his part to find and put in his reportI have before, during and after picturesFuture buyers beware of this home inspectorHe is unable to do a COMPLETE and thorough inspectionHis size kept him from going into an attic for thorough inspectionNow he mentions water in kitchen that he is stating was under kitchen sink, that is not what I am complaining aboutThat was fixed in contingency!! He mentions rust on metal doors of garage, not my issue or complaintI', saying loose chain on garage door opener to cause door to jump track and break the cableBlando Door company said this should have been caught by him to visually see this chain hanging down loosely so it could be put in a contingency of purchase to the houseHe never caught or mentioned that the slab near back door is clearly pitched towards the house so every time it rains I have standing water against the houseWhich I have pictures!! He failed to find or document by his inspectionWhere is it his concern on what the final sale price of the house was??? My complaint is clearly on not what I purchased the house for!!!! Stick to the complaint!! I am stuck with a house costing me unnecessary expense due to negligence on his inspection or there lack ofIf this inspection was done correctly the first time then he wouldn't as he states "have a lack of information"Where again in his findings was there a mention in his report of missing down spouts on garage? This inspector clearly does not know how to do a complete inspectionI will never sign a release to him for such negligence as he wants me to so I can get a measly $I am requesting $full price of inspection which proves to have been incomplete on his part Regards, Cindy [redacted]

Please accept this in reply to your correspondence of August 14th, 2017. On April 10th, I performed an inspection of a 1,sq/ft, bedroom, bath home built over a slabThe onsite inspection began at 9:am and I departed the property at 2:pm, while the client and
realtor remained onsiteA page report outlining all findings was authored and submitted to the client by email the following morning. On the evening of Saturday, May 27th I received a call from the client alleging substantial (although vague) safety concerns had been identified within the homeGiven the implied seriousness, I immediately returned from a family vacation in northern Wisconsin (Memorial Day Weekend) and met with her the following morningDuring our visit, the client outlined two areas of concern, a leak in the roof which occurred during a storm on May 13th, and the development of mold in the attic under existing insulationBased on the above, the client demanded a full refund, alleging she would not have purchased the home had she been properly advised of the roofs poor condition. While we take all client concerns serious, I reminded the client that we discussed the roofs poor general condition both prior to, and at length during the inspectionIn addition, I further documented the concerns via both photo and text in the formal report; specifically, shingles missing, broke, loose and brittle (pg 18), leaks identified in the attic with a recommendation to monitor until the roof was replaced (pg 63), roof and flashing to have exceeded its life expectancy (pg 2)As to allegations of water damage within the kitchen and common wall with the new addition, we discuss and noted water below and behind the kitchen cabinets, recommending identification and repair of its source immediately (pg 53), and also identified a potential concern with the common wall (pg 49) which had been partially repainted between the time of her initial showing and the date of the inspection. As to allegations of mold development and improper identification, while we will note the existence of any substances suspected of being mold which is identified during our visual examination of the accessible areas, we clearly advised the client prior to and during the inspection that we do not identify or report on the presence of mold (pg 10)Proper identification and/or testing for mold and other hazardous substances requires specialized equipment and training, as such, we recommend further inspection by qualified individualsThat said, while no signs of mold were noted during the home inspection, the ‘Environmental Protection Agency’ (EPA) reports mold can develop within 24-hours of conditions becoming favorableGiven same, if a leak occurred on 5/as reported, we would assume mold development could begin as early as the following day As to our clients’ attendance at home inspections, we neither require nor dissuaded the client from attending, rather we dedicate additional time during the later half of the inspection specifically for the presentation of our findingsWhile this system adds considerable time to our inspections, it allows us the opportunity to physically point out and discuss, in detail and without interruption, all identified concerns, while answering questions the client may haveWhile many clients do attend the entire inspection, others choose to attend only the final walk through depending on their respective schedules. Regarding the additional allegations now raised, I am unable to speak to same given a lack of notice or informationI can and have reported the overhead garage door was inspected and functioned as designed on April 10th, All doors are examined, with special attention given to the existence of rust on exterior metal doors and their related hardware (See comment regarding rust on the garage service door pg 62). As to a crack in the homes foundation, all visible areas of the slab were inspectedWhile some cracks within tolerances are to be expected, from both drying and settling, no cracks thought to be remarkable were identifiedRegarding rodent entry, the client is correct, we do not inspect under the exterior siding, such an examination would require removal of the siding and be considered destructiveWe would recommend all identified exterior openings be properly sealed during the course and scope of home maintenance. In sum, we feel the client was well advised as to the condition of the homeA fact not only supported via the written report provided to her, but also in the fact that she successfully negotiated a substantial reduction in the homes sale price, based on the deficiencies noted in this reportWhile we continue to maintain this client received a competent, well-documented home inspection, in both good faith and as a matter of customer service, we will maintain our prior offer to reimburse $toward her mold testing expenses in exchange for a release of all further claims

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] In response to the first paragraph stating "moisture identified at the light switch migrated from the brittle, loose cracked missing shingle on the homes roof". Got you on that one. You never knew about the water coming out of the light switch panel other than me calling you after your inspection. I have a witness when you were out to observe what you failed to find in your inspection or document and pictures showing water leaking from out of it. Also the shingles were not missing it was leaking from under the valley. You also told me and my witness you performed a moisture test. Where is that in your report? As for garage door opener, once again the professional who repaired the garage door cable told me "the loosely hanging chain from the opener should have been caught by your inspector to see that it would cause problems so that it could be put in a contingency to the seller". I have that in writing by Blando Door Company who made the repairs saying your negligent inspection failed to see an over laying problem.I'm glad this will be posted on the Revdex.com site against Due Dilligence which is represented by inspector Jeffrey [redacted]. I would like to warn the future home buyer/buyer's out there who is in need of an inspector to stay away from this inspector. Beware of substandard service performed by this man who is to big of a man to go on a roof or in an attic to do an inspection thoroughly because of his size. He gives quality home inspectors a bad name because of his lack of doing a thorough inspection. If he performed his inspection correct he would stand behind it without offering anything. Instead an admission of wrong and guilt by offering $100.00 towards a mold testing. On top of that he wants a release signed by me releasing him of all harm from his inspection. He knows darn well he is very guilty of not performing all of his inspection to the fullest. He has over looked MANY things that should have been caught and documented in his inspection so that I could have put that in a contingency to the sellers. I will not release him of harm by signing anything. I am seeking from him my full refund of $310.00 for not catching everything he should have. A simple full refund of the home inspection that wasn't performed as it should have would not have caused me to file a complaint with several agencies. His license is currently in the process of being questioned by the state. Good luck future home buyers, this inspector is by far the worse I have came across. 
Regards,
Cindy [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Upon reading the response by Jeffrey he lied with saying he left the inspection at 2pm. I had my work print out a copy of my work hours for the day which I was at work at 1:57pm. My realtor and I left at 1:25pm and he left at 1:15pm. This man is very untruthful. Next there is no mention on my part in this complaint about the roof being bad. My complaint is about water coming through a light switch panel which was a life or death situation for electrical fire which he failed to find in his inspection and has put myself and my kids lives at risk. I have pictures of water stains clearly coming from light switch panel that was neglected in his part to find and put in his report. I have before, during and after pictures. Future buyers beware of this home inspector. He is unable to do a COMPLETE and thorough inspection. His size kept him from going into an attic for thorough inspection. Now he mentions water in kitchen that he is stating was under kitchen sink, that is not what I am complaining about. That was fixed in contingency!! He mentions rust on metal doors of garage, not my issue or complaint. I', saying loose chain on garage door opener to cause door to jump track and break the cable. Blando Door company said this should have been caught by him to visually see this chain hanging down loosely so it could be put in a contingency of purchase to the house. He never caught or mentioned that the slab near back door is clearly pitched towards the house so every time it rains I have standing water against the house. Which I have pictures!! He failed to find or document by his inspection. Where is it his concern on what the final sale price of the house was??? My complaint is clearly on not what I purchased the house for!!!! Stick to the complaint!! I am stuck with a house costing me unnecessary expense due to negligence on his inspection or there lack of. If this inspection was done correctly the first time then he wouldn't as he states "have a lack of information". Where again in his findings was there a mention in his report of missing down spouts on garage? This inspector clearly does not know how to do a complete inspection. I will never sign a release to him for such negligence as he wants me to so I can get a measly $100.00. I am requesting $310.00 full price of inspection which proves to have been incomplete on his part.  
Regards,
Cindy [redacted]

I apologize if our original response of August 26th was unclear… While I empathize with the client regarding development of safety concerns following our inspection, I would remind her that any moisture identified at the light switch migrated from the brittle, loose, cracked and missing shingles on the homes roof… While by no means attempting to minimize her concerns, the client was well advised of the roofs poor condition, prior leaks, temporary repairs and areas of concern, both verbally and via the published report (see pg’s 2, 18, 49, 53, 63). As to concerns regarding chain adjustment and routine maintenance of the overhead garage door/opener, I am only able to attest to its proper installation and function during the time of the inspection. In addition, I would note the overhead door was used repeatedly as the primary point of entry to the garage during both our inspection and while the client was onsite discussing the findings of our inspection. At all times the door/opener operated as designed.While we appreciate the client’s time and continued effort to express her concerns, we remain adamant that a proper home inspection was performed. We will however, attempt to better explain the limitations of a home inspection to future clients, specifically related to the necessary follow through on recommended actions, as well as, the need for ongoing routine maintenance of both mechanicals and systems of the home. While we remain unable to refund all fees paid by the client, we will reiterate our offer to refund $100 toward the clients’ prior incurred mold testing expenses, in exchange for a release of all future claims. Regards,