Hayes Inspection Service, Inc.

Review: [redacted] and team conducted a home inspection on a house that I was purchasing. [redacted]' inspection report stated that the "home inspector shall open readily openable access panels provided by the manufacturer," which would specifically apply to major home systems such as the HVAC system. [redacted] failed to properly open and inspect a manufacturer-provided access panel on an outside heat pump. Instead, [redacted] determined this panel to be a "service panel," which his report states that he is not required to open. Instead, [redacted] simply read the posted placard on the outside of the unit, and reported the unit's age: 18 years old. Had [redacted] properly opened and inspected the access panel, an extremely minimal task that requires removing two very accessible screws on the face of the heat pump, he would have very easily noted the simply horrible condition of the heat pump components. He would have noted the air flow grill covered in debris, which, as told later by a reputable Richmond area HVAC firm the homeowner should periodically wipe with a damp cloth to ensure basic air flow through the grill, much like a home air filter. [redacted] would have noted the horrific condition of the compressor and accumulator, rusted nearly through, protective coating lying in shards in the pile of rust below the two major components. [redacted] would certainly have recommended in his report that in opening the access panel he found the unit in need of further inspection by a certified HVAC firm.

I understand that [redacted] is able to "interpret" a panel on a major system as either an "access" panel or a "service" panel. As a former Navy pilot and Gulf War veteran, I conducted a preflight of my aircraft before each flight, opening panels to look for potential oil or fuel leaks, as a matter of risk mitigation. My crew depended on my vigilance and attention to detail, with their lives. As a prospective home owner, I depend on a home inspector to perform his/her duties with similar attention to detail, taking the more professional route of determining a panel to be an "access" panel rather than the avoidable "service" panel. Performing simple cleaning (wiping down with a wet rag) of the air flow grill inside the panel is a basic homeowner function. Hence, the "panel" that [redacted] should have opened is an "access" panel, for which he is duly responsible to check. If he did and did not report the true condition of the unit to me, as he did not in his written report, then he is derelict in his duties. If he failed to open the panel, as it appears that he did not, then he is simply careless and unprofessional. In either case, we are now having to replace an expensive heat pump system, in large part due to [redacted] dereliction of his duties or carelessness.

I strongly do not recommend using [redacted] for any home inspection service.Desired Settlement: Unfortunately, there appears to be nothing that I can do to bring liable charges against [redacted]. If I could, I would. His home inspection report enables him to determine that the panel that my nine-year old son can open in about 10 seconds is a "service" panel and not an "access" panel, which he would have been required to open and inspect. I know now to open this panel to conduct basic, routine cleaning of the air flow grill in whatever heat pump replacement unit that I will be forced to expensively purchase.

My desired outcome, therefore, is that [redacted] be reminded to do a thorough and professional job henceforth, and not take the easy way out in determining a panel to be something to not open. Identifying a cracked window or some missing caulk below a window is one thing. As an untrained home system inspector, I can do that. Having the general knowledge that a heat pump that is 18-years old and probably 50% beyond its expected service life should be more closely inspected is just basic, common sense. Apparently, [redacted] doesn't get that. Shame on him.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com spoke with [redacted] from the business and he stated that the consumer's unit is 18 years old and when he was out to inspect it everything was running fine. He did notice with the heat kicked in the heat pump did not did not stop and there was some problems with the controls which he then contacted an agent for the consumer's home warranty company. They then found that there was a leak in the system and the consumer asked [redacted] why he didn't find it. [redacted] stated that that is not part of his inspection to go that deep into the system and to make sure the system is running correctly and at the time he inspected it, the system was running fine.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.

It is clear that the home inspector failed to properly visually and mechanically inspect the system. The home inspector's contract lists what he is responsible for checking. If he would have checked the required components of the system per his contract, he would have very easily and visually seen defects with the system that would have led him to conclude that the Seller was covering up the actual condition of the unit.

There is no way that the system checked out fine when the home inspector wrote "INSPECTED" on his report. There was no Freon left in the system, according to multiple technicians that later inspected the system. This system would not have passed a proper visual and mechanical test. I have the pictures to prove it, and the reports and findings from multiple Richmond area HVAC technicians that have come out to inspect the system to back it up. The fact is that the Home Warranty Company also confirmed what the HVAC technicians have all concluded: that the system had multiple PRE-EXISTING conditions that the home inspector should have caught with a simple visual and mechanical test.

The home inspection was performed on a cool to cold weather day. [redacted] air blowing through the fan system of the heat pump on "AC" setting is naturally going to feel "cool," too. Simply turning on the AC to Cold setting and feeling the benefit of the fan blowing "cool" air doesn't constitute a proper visual and mechanical test of the system. Anyone can get that result on a March day with snow on the ground. I advise the home inspector to look at the cover picture on the home inspector's own report from that day. It shows what the weather conditions were outside. I advise the home inspector to consider that on a cold day outside that perhaps simply turning a system On and having the Fan blow cool, ambient air does not equate to a proper test of the system. ESPECIALLY if the home inspector himself knew that the system was 18 YEARS OLD! As I mentioned in my original complaint, as a former pilot that flew aging aircraft, I was professional enough to do a bit more than just start the plane's engines before putting my crew in harms way. I was responsible enough to examine the aging plane a bit "deeper" just to make sure that I was doing my job as well as I could.

I have had to replace the system, at a cost of roughly $7500, due to a failure by the home inspector and the Seller failing to properly disclose the true condition of a system that he (Seller) knew very well would need all 10 pounds of Freon pumped back in it to blow cool air when the temperature outside rose in the early summer. By then, he would have sold the home and taken cover under Virginia's loose laws protecting Sellers from not having to properly disclose things like this. Couple this with a failed home inspection, and I am out $7500.

You can be sure that I will take this to Small Claims Court. I will present all of the evidence that I have and that I am continuing to gather, and let the court decide.

Regards,