Front Range Home Inspections

Here is a quote from my insurance companies findings on this matter [redacted] is the insurer for Front Range Home Inspections(“Front Range”) and [redacted] I am in receipt of the above claim submittedagainst Front Range in reference to the home inspection performed for yourclientWe have thoroughly reviewed the information submitted, which includedyour letter of June 26, 2014, various photographs, the inspection agreementpursuant to which the home inspection was performed, the home inspectionreport, as well as email communication between the parties.According to the information provided to [redacted] , you have allegedthat our insured failed to address the following in his inspection report ofyour clients’ home located at [redacted] (“SubjectProperty”) on January 31, 2014: Various Roofing DeficienciesI will address the above claim further belowAs you probablyalready know, a residential real estate inspection is a snap-shot in time, alimited, non-invasive, visual inspection that is conducted under acceptedindustry-wide protocolsThese protocols are promulgated by the [redacted] s ("***"), of which FrontRange is a memberThe industry Standards of Practice ("SOP") may befound at their website at www.***.org [redacted] [redacted] | Front Range HomeInspections Insured: Front Range Home InspectionsAugust 6, 2014Page 2of 5The purpose of the inspection is to identify systems andcomponents of the Property that, in the professional opinion of the inspector,are significantly deficientThe inspection and Report will be limited tovisible, readily and safely accessible areas and components of the Property.The inspection is limited to the apparent condition of the Property at the timeof the inspection.Please note that the subject inspection was performed pursuant toan inspection agreement signed by your client.Please note that theagreement was signed two days prior to the inspection.The terms and conditionscontained within the inspection agreement will be discussed further below.Claim No1: VariousRoofing DeficienciesPursuant to the terms of our insured’s agreement, and thestandards and practice of ***, “A general home inspection is a non-invasive,visual examination of the accessible areas of a residential property (asdelineated below), performed for a fee, which is designed to identify defectswithin specific systems and components defined by these Standards that are bothobserved and deemed material by the inspector.” See [redacted] SOP § 1.1.According to your June 26, correspondence you allege thatFront Range failed to note numerous alleged deficiencies existing in the roofstructure of the subject propertyWe note that as of this writing, no evidencehas been provided to support any claim for damage as a result of this allegedfailure to identify deficiencies in the roof structureThe photographs providedto this office merely identify the roof of the property and what we suspect isa photograph of a roof eaves where it meets a gutterWe imagine that thisphotograph is intended to depict the lack of a drip edge at this particularlocation.Pursuant to the inspection agreement and the SOP, “The homeinspector is not required to determine: ...compliance with codes orregulations.” See [redacted] SOP § 2.2.1(H)The [redacted] | Front Range HomeInspections Insured: Front Range Home InspectionsAugust 6, 2014Page of 5inspection is not a code compliance inspection, and even if itwere a code compliance inspection, the requirement of a drip edge is a recentrequirement that the roof in question may or may not been required to haveIfthe subject roof had been required to have a drip edge and the roofing companywho installed the roof did not include a drip edge, the city roofing inspectorshould have caught this conditionNevertheless, the inspection is not a codecompliance inspection.In reviewing the inspection report prepared for the subjectproperty, it is important to note that the inspection report states that theroof was covered with snow and could not be fully evaluatedWe note that yourcorrespondence takes issue with the assertion in the report which states thatthe roof could not be fully evaluated, and you state that based on thephotographs, Front Range had sufficient access to identify these conditions.Front Range walked only a limited portion of the roof and the observations madeby Front Range and identified in the inspection report were accurate at thetime of the home inspection, and of the areas available for inspection.It is important to understand that a significant portion of theroof inspection is performed from within the atticDuring the atticinspection, the home inspector attempts to identify any visually identifiablesigns of water intrusion at the accessible roof penetrations and other commonleak locationsWe note from the inspection report and photographs that novisually identifiable leaks were located in the attic, and the only prior leaknoted was in the garageAccording to the information available to our officeit was almost four months after the inspection that your client contact FrontRange to identify a concern.You further state in your letter that your client has had numerousroofing inspections since the inspection performed by Front Range, and thoseinspections have identified that the roof was in a highly compromised conditionwhen Front Range performed its inspectionWith all due [redacted] | Front Range HomeInspections Insured: Front Range Home InspectionsAugust 6, 2014Page 4of 5respect, this is a relatively convenient and self-servingstatement for a licensed roofing contractor to make, who has the benefit of adry roof to fully inspectAs of this date, our office has not been providedwith any report prepared by any entity regarding the subject roof since thedate of the Front Range inspection.As previously stated, the information provided to our office hasnot provided any evidence to support a claim for damages against Front Range.The conditions alleged by your client appear to be either nonexistent, codecompliance related, or not visually identifiable on the date of the inspection.We would also like to bring to your attention that had Front Rangebeen negligent in their inspection of the subject property, and if your clienthad cognizable damages, the liability assumed by Front Range, is contractuallylimited to the fee paid for the inspection.Thus, the maximum liabilityassumed by Front Range for the subject claim would be $374.Based upon our investigation and the foregoing, we do not find anyevidence which supports the contention that Front Range was deficient in theirinspection of the subject property, and we conclude that Front Range HomeInspections has no liability regarding the alleged claims as detailed above

The inspection was performed and the report generated in accordance with the [redacted] Standards of PracticePursuant to the Standards of Practice it is a home inspector’s responsibility to identify systems and components of the property that, in the professional opinion of the inspector, are significantly deficientThe inspection and report is limited to visible, readily and safely accessible areas and components of the propertyThe inspection is limited to the apparent condition of the property at the time of the inspectionThe complaints of Mr [redacted] are related to conditions at the property that were either nonexistent at the time of the inspection or were concealed Upon first advisement of Mr ***’s concerns, I advised my insurance company who assigned an independent adjusting company to investigate and adjust the claim of Mr***The adjusting company performed a thorough investigation of Mr***’s complaints and determined that the inspection and report were performed in accordance with the applicable standards of practice and the inspection agreement Mr [redacted] signedIt is unfortunate that Mr [redacted] does not appear to understand the limitations of a residential visual inspectionA residential visual inspection is not intended to identify every actual or potential condition which may arise during the course of their homeownershipHomeownership as anyone who is around a home can understand, is in many cases a gambleThe purpose of a residential home inspection is to take some of the gamble out but certainly not intended to eliminate it entirely As previously stated, at the request of Mr***’s attorney a full and complete investigation was performed by my insurance companies’ independent adjusting company who determined that the inspection was not deficient and that I had no liability for the alleged conditionsThis position was communicated to Mr***’s attorney and no further pursuit was undertakenMy offer to refund Mr [redacted] the fee for the inspection, was offered as a goodwill gesture, but was in no way intended to admit any liability for the claims of Mr*** As far as I’m concerned this matter has been fully investigated and a determination as to its validity has been renderedMr***’s continued pursuit of this matter through these means, is merely an attempt on his part to disparage and impugn my reputationI stand behind my inspections, and Mr [redacted] received a comprehensive inspection in accordance with the applicable standards of practice

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:As clearly depicted in FRHI's FULL length report and photographs:On page 21 - the roofing drawing provided by FRHI clearly shows and calls-out "metal drip edge" twice as well as other roof construction componentsOn page 21 - the photos provided by FRHI clearly show that the photos were taken from the roof level and physically NOT obscured by snow on ALL surfacesOn page 22 - this page CLEARLY states "3.3 - We evaluated the roof and its components by walking on its surface." "3.4 - The roof appears to be relatively new...." "Roofing Material Informational Conditions 3.5 - The visible portion of the roof is in acceptable condition."On page 22 - the photos provided clearly show that the inspector could of physically touched the drip edge if it existed, etc. and is clearly visible - it is located on the vertical portion of the house - there was some drip edge installed but was far from being completed 100%, there was some drip edge installed above the garage door (a "straight run") but was missing approx. 1/3 of it which was clearly visible from the ground level (approx. 10' - 12' above the driveway)On page 23 - the photos provided by FRHI clearly shows the bathroom vent is installed incorrectly, there is NO snow obscuring the roof in 3 photos including the incorrectly installed bathroom vent as well as the statement of "The visible portion of the roof is in acceptable condition" at the top of the pageOn page 24 - at the top of the page it states "Flashings Informational Conditions 3.6 The roof flashing are in acceptable condition" - the entire roof had to be replaced including improperly install vents and flashingThese items should have raised a red flag to a "Certified Master Home Inspector", "Certified Roof Inspector" as claimed on FRHI's website and further investigation.As well, what happened to the statements on FRHI's website of:"I am determined to perform inspections of the up most quality, with integrity. For a buyer, I make sure that they know and understand every fact about the property that they are purchasing.""Anytime that you are purchasing a property, I understand that it is a HUGE investment. Everyone involved needs to know every aspect of the property. I take pride in providing this service.""I work directly for the client. My job is to insure that the client understands every item that may be reported. My job does not end after the report is completed. Should you have any questions months down the road, you are encouraged to give me a call and I will do whatever it takes to insure that you are completely comfortable with the property.""I am here to assist you in making a confident decision about your property."I RELIED on these statements.I will gladly provide a copy of this FULL inspection report including the photos. Regards, [redacted] ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The issues at hand were visible and shown in Front Range Home Inspection's (FRHI) report and photos but clearly missedPlease see FRHI's report including the photos and detailed drawings as previously sentOnce again, the following items were clearly visible and photographed: ABathroom vent is installed incorrectly so it would take on waterBDrip edge was partially installed or incomplete - FRHI even inserted a drawing in the report showing drip edge COther roof vents were not nailed down and improperly installedDLeak in the garage, water stained drywallFRHI's insurance company did not physically send anyone out to the property to further investigate - I believe this would be pertinent for a "thorough inspection" as claimedAnd of course the insurance company does not want to pay or admit any liabilityOnce again, I would ask FRHI to follow, honor and batheir statements on their website as continually mentioned throughout this dispute
Regards,
*** ***

The inspection was performed and
the report generated in accordance with the [redacted] Standards of Practice. Pursuant to the Standards of
Practice it is a home inspector’s responsibility to identify systems and
components of the property that, in the professional opinion of the inspector,
are significantly deficient. The inspection and report is limited to visible,
readily and safely accessible areas and components of the property. The
inspection is limited to the apparent condition of the property at the time of
the inspection. The complaints of Mr. [redacted] are related to conditions at the
property that were either nonexistent at the time of the inspection or were
concealed.
Upon first advisement of Mr.
[redacted]’s concerns, I advised my insurance company who assigned an independent
adjusting company to investigate and adjust the claim of Mr. [redacted]. The
adjusting company performed a thorough investigation of Mr. [redacted]’s complaints
and determined that the inspection and report were performed in accordance with
the applicable standards of practice and the inspection agreement Mr. [redacted]
signed. It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] does not appear to understand the
limitations of a residential visual inspection. A residential visual inspection
is not intended to identify every actual or potential condition which may arise
during the course of their homeownership. Homeownership as anyone who is around
a home can understand, is in many cases a gamble. The purpose of a residential
home inspection is to take some of the gamble out but certainly not intended to
eliminate it entirely.
As previously stated, at the
request of Mr. [redacted]’s attorney a full and complete investigation was performed
by my insurance companies’ independent adjusting company who determined that
the inspection was not deficient and that I had no liability for the alleged
conditions. This position was communicated to Mr. [redacted]’s attorney and no
further pursuit was undertaken. My offer to refund Mr. [redacted] the fee for the inspection,
was offered as a goodwill gesture, but was in no way intended to admit any
liability for the claims of Mr. [redacted].
As far as I’m concerned this
matter has been fully investigated and a determination as to its validity has
been rendered. Mr. [redacted]’s continued pursuit of this matter through these means,
is merely an attempt on his part to disparage and impugn my reputation. I stand
behind my inspections, and Mr. [redacted] received a comprehensive inspection in
accordance with the applicable standards of practice.

Here is a quote from my insurance companies findings on this matter.  [redacted] is the insurer for Front Range Home Inspections(“Front Range”) and [redacted]. I am in receipt of the above claim submittedagainst Front Range in reference to the home inspection performed...

for yourclient. We have thoroughly reviewed the information submitted, which includedyour letter of June 26, 2014, various photographs, the inspection agreementpursuant to which the home inspection was performed, the home inspectionreport, as well as email communication between the parties.According to the information provided to [redacted], you have allegedthat our insured failed to address the following in his inspection report ofyour clients’ home located at [redacted] (“SubjectProperty”) on January 31, 2014:1.         Various Roofing DeficienciesI will address the above claim further below. As you probablyalready know, a residential real estate inspection is a snap-shot in time, alimited, non-invasive, visual inspection that is conducted under acceptedindustry-wide protocols. These protocols are promulgated by the [redacted]s ("[redacted]"), of which FrontRange is a member. The industry Standards of Practice ("SOP") may befound at their website at www.[redacted].org. [redacted]
[redacted] | Front Range HomeInspections Insured:         Front Range Home InspectionsAugust 6, 2014Page 2of 5The purpose of the inspection is to identify systems andcomponents of the Property that, in the professional opinion of the inspector,are significantly deficient. The inspection and Report will be limited tovisible, readily and safely accessible areas and components of the Property.The inspection is limited to the apparent condition of the Property at the timeof the inspection.Please note that the subject inspection was performed pursuant toan inspection agreement signed by your client.Please note that theagreement was signed two days prior to the inspection.The terms and conditionscontained within the inspection agreement will be discussed further below.Claim No. 1: VariousRoofing Deficiencies. Pursuant to the terms of our insured’s agreement, and thestandards and practice of [redacted], “A general home inspection is a non-invasive,visual examination of the accessible areas of a residential property (asdelineated below), performed for a fee, which is designed to identify defectswithin specific systems and components defined by these Standards that are bothobserved and deemed material by the inspector.” See [redacted] SOP § 1.1.According to your June 26, 2014 correspondence you allege thatFront Range failed to note numerous alleged deficiencies existing in the roofstructure of the subject property. We note that as of this writing, no evidencehas been provided to support any claim for damage as a result of this allegedfailure to identify deficiencies in the roof structure. The photographs providedto this office merely identify the roof of the property and what we suspect isa photograph of a roof eaves where it meets a gutter. We imagine that thisphotograph is intended to depict the lack of a drip edge at this particularlocation.Pursuant to the inspection agreement and the SOP, “The homeinspector is not required to determine: ...compliance with codes orregulations.” See [redacted] SOP § 2.2.1(H). The[redacted] | Front Range HomeInspections Insured:         Front Range Home InspectionsAugust 6, 2014Page 3 of 5inspection is not a code compliance inspection, and even if itwere a code compliance inspection, the requirement of a drip edge is a recentrequirement that the roof in question may or may not been required to have. Ifthe subject roof had been required to have a drip edge and the roofing companywho installed the roof did not include a drip edge, the city roofing inspectorshould have caught this condition. Nevertheless, the inspection is not a codecompliance inspection.In reviewing the inspection report prepared for the subjectproperty, it is important to note that the inspection report states that theroof was covered with snow and could not be fully evaluated. We note that yourcorrespondence takes issue with the assertion in the report which states thatthe roof could not be fully evaluated, and you state that based on thephotographs, Front Range had sufficient access to identify these conditions.Front Range walked only a limited portion of the roof and the observations madeby Front Range and identified in the inspection report were accurate at thetime of the home inspection, and of the areas available for inspection.It is important to understand that a significant portion of theroof inspection is performed from within the attic. During the atticinspection, the home inspector attempts to identify any visually identifiablesigns of water intrusion at the accessible roof penetrations and other commonleak locations. We note from the inspection report and photographs that novisually identifiable leaks were located in the attic, and the only prior leaknoted was in the garage. According to the information available to our officeit was almost four months after the inspection that your client contact FrontRange to identify a concern.You further state in your letter that your client has had numerousroofing inspections since the inspection performed by Front Range, and thoseinspections have identified that the roof was in a highly compromised conditionwhen Front Range performed its inspection. With all due[redacted] | Front Range HomeInspections Insured:         Front Range Home InspectionsAugust 6, 2014Page 4of 5respect, this is a relatively convenient and self-servingstatement for a licensed roofing contractor to make, who has the benefit of adry roof to fully inspect. As of this date, our office has not been providedwith any report prepared by any entity regarding the subject roof since thedate of the Front Range inspection.As previously stated, the information provided to our office hasnot provided any evidence to support a claim for damages against Front Range.The conditions alleged by your client appear to be either nonexistent, codecompliance related, or not visually identifiable on the date of the inspection.We would also like to bring to your attention that had Front Rangebeen negligent in their inspection of the subject property, and if your clienthad cognizable damages, the liability assumed by Front Range, is contractuallylimited to the fee paid for the inspection.Thus, the maximum liabilityassumed by Front Range for the subject claim would be $374.Based upon our investigation and the foregoing, we do not find anyevidence which supports the contention that Front Range was deficient in theirinspection of the subject property, and we conclude that Front Range HomeInspections has no liability regarding the alleged claims as detailed above.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The statements made on the website of the business at the time I hired this business were not followed or kept.Some of the statements were:"My job is to insure that the client understands every item that may be reported. My job does not end after the report is completed. Should you have any questions months down the road, you are encouraged to give me a call and I will do whatever it takes to insure that you are completely comfortable with the property."I did call him after the report was completed and he offered the fee I paid to be refunded but I was told that this was not an admission of guilt but in "good faith". This is not "I will do whatever it takes to insure that you are completely comfortable with the property" as stated above and on the website - please see attached, it is a copy of the businesses website.Also, the report (sent earlier) under Section 3.0 - Roof, Method of Evaluation part 3.3 - "We evaluated the roof and its components by walking on its surface." - if this was accomplished "we" would have almost fallen through the roof as 8 sheets of 4' x 8' decking (256 square feet) had to be replaced in one area of the roof when the roof was replaced. The decking in this one area of the roof was ready to fail and at least one person almost fell through during an inspection by one of the roofing companies (before the roof was replaced).Again, the report provided by this business, under Section 3.0 - Roof, shows a detailed drawing "Typical asphalt shingle application - showing metal drip edge". There was "some" drip edge installed but was very incomplete, even a straight "run" of an area of approx. 30'+ above the garage door only had approx. 2/3rds of it installed - this area was/is easily seen from the ground/driveway but was not detected in the report provided by the business.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted]
To Whom it may concern,Here is my final response on this complaint.Regards [redacted]
 
The following is stated in the report “However, what remains true of all roofs is that, whereastheir condition can be evaluated, it is virtually impossible for anyone to detect a leak except as it isoccurring or by specific water tests, which are beyond the scope of our service. Even water stains onceilings, or on the framing within attics, could be old and will not necessarily confirm an active leakwithout some corroborative evidence, and such evidence can be deliberately concealed. Consequently,only the installers can credibly guarantee that a roof will not leak, and they do. We evaluate every roofconscientiously, and even attempt to approximate its age, but we will not predict its remaining lifeexpectancy, or guarantee that it will not leak. Naturally, the sellers or the occupants of a residence willgenerally have the most intimate knowledge of the roof and of its history. Therefore, we recommendthat you ask the sellers about it, and that you either include comprehensive roof coverage in your homeinsurance policy, or that you obtain a roof certification from an established local roofing company.The following items or areas are not included in this inspection: areas that could not be traversed orviewed clearly due to lack of access; areas and components obscured by insulation; solar roofingcomponents; any comments made regarding these items are as a courtesy only. Note that the inspectordoes not determination if rafters, trusses, joists, beams, etc. are of adequate size, spanning or spacing.The inspector does not provide an estimate of remaining roof surface life, does not determine that theroof has absolutely no leaks at the time of the inspection, and does not determine that the roof won'tleak in the future. Only active leaks and evidence of past leaks observed during the inspection arereported on as part of this inspection. To absolutely determine that no leaks exist, complete access toall roof structure areas must be available during a wide variety of weather conditions, includingprolonged heavy rain, high wind from varying directions, heavy accumulations of snow and/or ice, andmelting snow and ice.” 
 There was no evidence of an active leak at the time of inspection. Stains from a prior leak in the garage were noted and the client was advised to get information on any roof warranty and past conditions from the seller.The client was offered a refund of the base inspection fee as well as the fee for the Radon test, but the client declined and pursued communication with my insurance company. I have tried to accommodate the client in accordance with our signed inspection agreement.The concerns identified by the client have all been fully addressed on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, the client is unhappy with the response. I do my best to respond to every concern of a client. However, limitations exist in every inspection performed and issues may arise after the inspection which could not be identified on the date of the inspection.
The above will constitute my final response to this matter.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:As clearly depicted in FRHI's FULL length report and photographs:On page 21 - the roofing drawing provided by FRHI clearly shows and calls-out "metal drip edge" twice as well as other roof construction componentsOn page 21 - the photos provided by FRHI clearly show that the photos were taken from the roof level and physically NOT obscured by snow on ALL surfacesOn page 22 - this page CLEARLY states "3.3 - We evaluated the roof and its components by walking on its surface." "3.4 - The roof appears to be relatively new...." "Roofing Material Informational Conditions 3.5 - The visible portion of the roof is in acceptable condition."On page 22 - the photos provided clearly show that the inspector could of physically touched the drip edge if it existed, etc. and is clearly visible - it is located on the vertical portion of the house - there was some drip edge installed but was far from being completed 100%, there was some drip edge installed above the garage door (a "straight run") but was missing approx. 1/3 of it which was clearly visible from the ground level (approx. 10' - 12' above the driveway)On page 23 - the photos provided by FRHI clearly shows the bathroom vent is installed incorrectly, there is NO snow obscuring the roof in 3 photos including the incorrectly installed bathroom vent as well as the statement of "The visible portion of the roof is in acceptable condition" at the top of the pageOn page 24 - at the top of the page it states "Flashings Informational Conditions 3.6 The roof flashing are in acceptable condition" - the entire roof had to be replaced including improperly install vents and flashingThese items should have raised a red flag to a "Certified Master Home Inspector", "Certified Roof Inspector" as claimed on FRHI's website and further investigation.As well, what happened to the statements on FRHI's website of:"I am determined to perform inspections of the up most quality, with integrity.  For a buyer, I make sure that they know and understand every fact about the property that they are purchasing.""Anytime that you are purchasing a property, I understand that it is a HUGE investment.  Everyone involved needs to know every aspect of the property.  I take pride in providing this service.""I work directly for the client.  My job is to insure that the client understands every item that may be reported.  My job does not end after the report is completed.  Should you have any questions months down the road, you are encouraged to give me a call and I will do whatever it takes to insure that you are completely comfortable with the property.""I am here to assist you in making a confident decision about your property."I RELIED on these statements.I will gladly provide a copy of this FULL inspection report including the photos.
Regards,
[redacted]

I consider this case resolved and have no intention of wasting any more of time arguing back and forth. This has become nothing more than harassment and defamation of character on the part of Mr [redacted] and the Revdex.com. I have been accommodating to to Mr [redacted]. I reject Mr [redacted]s complaint in its entirety.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I beleive Front Range Home Inspection's previous response states his intentions - he will not do anything to correct the complaint.The roof on the house, at the time of inspection by Front Range Home Inspections/[redacted] (Certified Roof Inspector & Certified Master Home Inspector), was installed incorrectly and so poorly it had to be entirely replaced at a cost of over $10,000 within less than six months after home was purchased.
Regards,
[redacted]