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 belowI did not take the time to call him is because he is not a repairman or insurance company so was and seems is still not of any help for meA small nail hole on the front side of the house does not cause the amount of leaking I experienced on the back of the houseThe picture of the attic window is of the opposite side of the house, there are no wires on the other side where he climbed upIt would not have been dangerous to climb in the window if his ladder was tall enough, his ladder was obviously only a 12' ladder which is too short for many applicationsOne of the roofing estimators did easily climb in the window for a visual inspectionThe second time I emailed in him January is when he did not return my email and when I said there was ice damming now tooHe also said the rain gutters were in good condition which they were not, they leaked Regards,
On [redacted] I was contacted by the complainant requesting a home inspection.I gathered her information and e-mailed the complainant the Home Inspection Agreement and the WisconsinStandards of Practice so she would have ample time to read the documents over prior to the inspection Shee-mailed me back stating that she received the e-mail and documents.Contrary to the complainants assertion that I did not communicate with her you will see by reading thisresponse I addressed her concerns in a timely and professional manner.The inspection took place on 08/05/The owner of the house was deceased and had been a retiredMilwaukee Police OfficerI did not know him or his son who lived in Green BayI exchanged some small talkwith him, and he mentioned some name of his deceased father’s co-workersSome of the names I hadrecognized and told him soThat was the extent of our conversation.I went on with the inspection and the owner’s son was gathering up some of his father’s personal property tomove to the garage or take home with him.The owner’s son did not follow me up on the roof during the roof inspection.When I received a call from the complainant she told me that she had a roof leak on the lower part of the roofand that she had a contractor come over and he went on the roof and told her that the rubber boot aroundthe vent pipe was bad and he changed it(See the attached picture showing it in satisfactory condition at thetime of the inspection) The complainant then went on to tell me that this did not solve the problem with theleakThe complainant then told me that she called different roofers and they inspected the roof and shehired one and he re-roofed the house.I asked the complainant if she contacted her home owners insuranceShe said that she had called them andthey told her that they need to send out an insurance adjuster before she re-roofed the house and that it maytake a few days before they can get thereThe complainant stated that she did not want to wait so she had herhouse re-roofedShe then asked me if I had insurance that would cover the bill.She said to me that if I had gone on the roof and inspected it and gone into the attic I would have seen thatthere was a problemI assured her during our phone conversation that when I returned home I would lookthe report up and get back to her.Once I got home I looked the report up and read it overI clearly remembered the inspection.I did conduct a complete and thorough roof inspection and walked the entire roof and it was in satisfactorycondition at the time of the inspection.I e-mailed her the report telling her that if she looked at the report she would see the pictures clearly showthat I was on the roof and that it was satisfactory at the time of the inspectionI explained that as I walkedthe entire roof there were no spongy areas(See the attached roof page of the report and pictures).One of the roof pictures showed nails popping out with instructions to have it repaired as this could be acause of moisture penetrationThe other pictures show a roof in satisfactory condition.I explained to the complainant that she knew full well that I did not enter the attic because the attic entrance,an exterior window covered with a curtain was too high and dangerous for me to attempt to gain entry (seepicture of the side of the house with the window at the peak of the house).I did place my ladder fully extended and it stopped under the windowI climbed to the top and could not seeinto the attic because of there being a curtain covering the windowI could see that there was an antenna inthe attic.It would have been very dangerous for me to attempt to remove that window and climb in the attic.This is directly from the Wisconsin Standards of practice: What an inspector is not required to do.(c) Enter any area or perform any procedure that may damage an improvement to residential realproperty or a component of an improvement to residential real property, or enter any area orperform any procedure that may be dangerous to the home inspector or to other persons.I further pointed out that in the agreement that she signed she agreed to give me at least hours to examinethe problem prior to repairing it(See next paragraph).ADDITIONAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONSThe Inspection will not include an appraisal of the value or a surveyThe written report is not a compliance
On [redacted] I was contacted by the complainant requesting a home inspection.I gathered her information and e-mailed the complainant the Home Inspection Agreement and the WisconsinStandards of Practice so she would have ample time to read the documents over prior to the inspection....
Shee-mailed me back stating that she received the e-mail and documents.Contrary to the complainants assertion that I did not communicate with her you will see by reading thisresponse I addressed her concerns in a timely and professional manner.The inspection took place on 08/05/2015. The owner of the house was deceased and had been a retiredMilwaukee Police Officer. I did not know him or his son who lived in Green Bay. I exchanged some small talkwith him, and he mentioned some name of his deceased father’s co-workers. Some of the names I hadrecognized and told him so. That was the extent of our conversation.I went on with the inspection and the owner’s son was gathering up some of his father’s personal property tomove to the garage or take home with him.The owner’s son did not follow me up on the roof during the roof inspection.When I received a call from the complainant she told me that she had a roof leak on the lower part of the roofand that she had a contractor come over and he went on the roof and told her that the rubber boot aroundthe vent pipe was bad and he changed it. (See the attached picture showing it in satisfactory condition at thetime of the inspection) The complainant then went on to tell me that this did not solve the problem with theleak. The complainant then told me that she called 3 different roofers and they inspected the roof and shehired one and he re-roofed the house.I asked the complainant if she contacted her home owners insurance. She said that she had called them andthey told her that they need to send out an insurance adjuster before she re-roofed the house and that it maytake a few days before they can get there. The complainant stated that she did not want to wait so she had herhouse re-roofed. She then asked me if I had insurance that would cover the bill.She said to me that if I had gone on the roof and inspected it and gone into the attic I would have seen thatthere was a problem. I assured her during our phone conversation that when I returned home I would lookthe report up and get back to her.Once I got home I looked the report up and read it over. I clearly remembered the inspection.I did conduct a complete and thorough roof inspection and walked the entire roof and it was in satisfactorycondition at the time of the inspection.I e-mailed her the report telling her that if she looked at the report she would see the pictures clearly showthat I was on the roof and that it was satisfactory at the time of the inspection. I explained that as I walkedthe entire roof there were no spongy areas. (See the attached roof page of the report and pictures).One of the roof pictures showed nails popping out with instructions to have it repaired as this could be acause of moisture penetration. The other pictures show a roof in satisfactory condition.I explained to the complainant that she knew full well that I did not enter the attic because the attic entrance,an exterior window covered with a curtain was too high and dangerous for me to attempt to gain entry (seepicture of the side of the house with the window at the peak of the house).I did place my ladder fully extended and it stopped under the window. I climbed to the top and could not seeinto the attic because of there being a curtain covering the window. I could see that there was an antenna inthe attic.It would have been very dangerous for me to attempt to remove that window and climb in the attic.This is directly from the Wisconsin Standards of practice: What an inspector is not required to do.(c) Enter any area or perform any procedure that may damage an improvement to residential realproperty or a component of an improvement to residential real property, or enter any area orperform any procedure that may be dangerous to the home inspector or to other persons.I further pointed out that in the agreement that she signed she agreed to give me at least 72 hours to examinethe problem prior to repairing it. (See next paragraph).ADDITIONAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS10. The Inspection will not include an appraisal of the value or a survey. The written report is not a compliance
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.
I did not take the time to call him is because he is not a repairman or insurance company so was and seems is still not of any help for me. A small nail hole on the front side of the house does not cause the amount of leaking I experienced on the back of the house. The picture of the attic window is of the opposite side of the house, there are no wires on the other side where he climbed up. It would not have been dangerous to climb in the window if his ladder was tall enough, his ladder was obviously only a 12' ladder which is too short for many applications. One of the roofing estimators did easily climb in the window for a visual inspection. The second time I emailed in him January is when he did not return my email and when I said there was ice damming now too. He also said the rain gutters were in good condition which they were not, they leaked.
Regards,
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 belowI did not take the time to call him is because he is not a repairman or insurance company so was and seems is still not of any help for meA small nail hole on the front side of the house does not cause the amount of leaking I experienced on the back of the houseThe picture of the attic window is of the opposite side of the house, there are no wires on the other side where he climbed upIt would not have been dangerous to climb in the window if his ladder was tall enough, his ladder was obviously only a 12' ladder which is too short for many applicationsOne of the roofing estimators did easily climb in the window for a visual inspectionThe second time I emailed in him January is when he did not return my email and when I said there was ice damming now tooHe also said the rain gutters were in good condition which they were not, they leaked Regards,
On [redacted] I was contacted by the complainant requesting a home inspection.I gathered her information and e-mailed the complainant the Home Inspection Agreement and the WisconsinStandards of Practice so she would have ample time to read the documents over prior to the inspection Shee-mailed me back stating that she received the e-mail and documents.Contrary to the complainants assertion that I did not communicate with her you will see by reading thisresponse I addressed her concerns in a timely and professional manner.The inspection took place on 08/05/The owner of the house was deceased and had been a retiredMilwaukee Police OfficerI did not know him or his son who lived in Green BayI exchanged some small talkwith him, and he mentioned some name of his deceased father’s co-workersSome of the names I hadrecognized and told him soThat was the extent of our conversation.I went on with the inspection and the owner’s son was gathering up some of his father’s personal property tomove to the garage or take home with him.The owner’s son did not follow me up on the roof during the roof inspection.When I received a call from the complainant she told me that she had a roof leak on the lower part of the roofand that she had a contractor come over and he went on the roof and told her that the rubber boot aroundthe vent pipe was bad and he changed it(See the attached picture showing it in satisfactory condition at thetime of the inspection) The complainant then went on to tell me that this did not solve the problem with theleakThe complainant then told me that she called different roofers and they inspected the roof and shehired one and he re-roofed the house.I asked the complainant if she contacted her home owners insuranceShe said that she had called them andthey told her that they need to send out an insurance adjuster before she re-roofed the house and that it maytake a few days before they can get thereThe complainant stated that she did not want to wait so she had herhouse re-roofedShe then asked me if I had insurance that would cover the bill.She said to me that if I had gone on the roof and inspected it and gone into the attic I would have seen thatthere was a problemI assured her during our phone conversation that when I returned home I would lookthe report up and get back to her.Once I got home I looked the report up and read it overI clearly remembered the inspection.I did conduct a complete and thorough roof inspection and walked the entire roof and it was in satisfactorycondition at the time of the inspection.I e-mailed her the report telling her that if she looked at the report she would see the pictures clearly showthat I was on the roof and that it was satisfactory at the time of the inspectionI explained that as I walkedthe entire roof there were no spongy areas(See the attached roof page of the report and pictures).One of the roof pictures showed nails popping out with instructions to have it repaired as this could be acause of moisture penetrationThe other pictures show a roof in satisfactory condition.I explained to the complainant that she knew full well that I did not enter the attic because the attic entrance,an exterior window covered with a curtain was too high and dangerous for me to attempt to gain entry (seepicture of the side of the house with the window at the peak of the house).I did place my ladder fully extended and it stopped under the windowI climbed to the top and could not seeinto the attic because of there being a curtain covering the windowI could see that there was an antenna inthe attic.It would have been very dangerous for me to attempt to remove that window and climb in the attic.This is directly from the Wisconsin Standards of practice: What an inspector is not required to do.(c) Enter any area or perform any procedure that may damage an improvement to residential realproperty or a component of an improvement to residential real property, or enter any area orperform any procedure that may be dangerous to the home inspector or to other persons.I further pointed out that in the agreement that she signed she agreed to give me at least hours to examinethe problem prior to repairing it(See next paragraph).ADDITIONAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONSThe Inspection will not include an appraisal of the value or a surveyThe written report is not a compliance
On [redacted] I was contacted by the complainant requesting a home inspection.I gathered her information and e-mailed the complainant the Home Inspection Agreement and the WisconsinStandards of Practice so she would have ample time to read the documents over prior to the inspection....
Shee-mailed me back stating that she received the e-mail and documents.Contrary to the complainants assertion that I did not communicate with her you will see by reading thisresponse I addressed her concerns in a timely and professional manner.The inspection took place on 08/05/2015. The owner of the house was deceased and had been a retiredMilwaukee Police Officer. I did not know him or his son who lived in Green Bay. I exchanged some small talkwith him, and he mentioned some name of his deceased father’s co-workers. Some of the names I hadrecognized and told him so. That was the extent of our conversation.I went on with the inspection and the owner’s son was gathering up some of his father’s personal property tomove to the garage or take home with him.The owner’s son did not follow me up on the roof during the roof inspection.When I received a call from the complainant she told me that she had a roof leak on the lower part of the roofand that she had a contractor come over and he went on the roof and told her that the rubber boot aroundthe vent pipe was bad and he changed it. (See the attached picture showing it in satisfactory condition at thetime of the inspection) The complainant then went on to tell me that this did not solve the problem with theleak. The complainant then told me that she called 3 different roofers and they inspected the roof and shehired one and he re-roofed the house.I asked the complainant if she contacted her home owners insurance. She said that she had called them andthey told her that they need to send out an insurance adjuster before she re-roofed the house and that it maytake a few days before they can get there. The complainant stated that she did not want to wait so she had herhouse re-roofed. She then asked me if I had insurance that would cover the bill.She said to me that if I had gone on the roof and inspected it and gone into the attic I would have seen thatthere was a problem. I assured her during our phone conversation that when I returned home I would lookthe report up and get back to her.Once I got home I looked the report up and read it over. I clearly remembered the inspection.I did conduct a complete and thorough roof inspection and walked the entire roof and it was in satisfactorycondition at the time of the inspection.I e-mailed her the report telling her that if she looked at the report she would see the pictures clearly showthat I was on the roof and that it was satisfactory at the time of the inspection. I explained that as I walkedthe entire roof there were no spongy areas. (See the attached roof page of the report and pictures).One of the roof pictures showed nails popping out with instructions to have it repaired as this could be acause of moisture penetration. The other pictures show a roof in satisfactory condition.I explained to the complainant that she knew full well that I did not enter the attic because the attic entrance,an exterior window covered with a curtain was too high and dangerous for me to attempt to gain entry (seepicture of the side of the house with the window at the peak of the house).I did place my ladder fully extended and it stopped under the window. I climbed to the top and could not seeinto the attic because of there being a curtain covering the window. I could see that there was an antenna inthe attic.It would have been very dangerous for me to attempt to remove that window and climb in the attic.This is directly from the Wisconsin Standards of practice: What an inspector is not required to do.(c) Enter any area or perform any procedure that may damage an improvement to residential realproperty or a component of an improvement to residential real property, or enter any area orperform any procedure that may be dangerous to the home inspector or to other persons.I further pointed out that in the agreement that she signed she agreed to give me at least 72 hours to examinethe problem prior to repairing it. (See next paragraph).ADDITIONAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS10. The Inspection will not include an appraisal of the value or a survey. The written report is not a compliance
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.
I did not take the time to call him is because he is not a repairman or insurance company so was and seems is still not of any help for me. A small nail hole on the front side of the house does not cause the amount of leaking I experienced on the back of the house. The picture of the attic window is of the opposite side of the house, there are no wires on the other side where he climbed up. It would not have been dangerous to climb in the window if his ladder was tall enough, his ladder was obviously only a 12' ladder which is too short for many applications. One of the roofing estimators did easily climb in the window for a visual inspection. The second time I emailed in him January is when he did not return my email and when I said there was ice damming now too. He also said the rain gutters were in good condition which they were not, they leaked.
Regards,