Heimer Engineering P.C.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
Your response does not resolve that we are requesting a full refund for inferior service
In response I have attached a copy of the OSHA fact sheet on Electrical Panel Accessibility and Enclosure of Live Parts, you will note that under OSHA Standard (CFR 1910.305(d)) and National Electrical Code (NFPA 110.27) from the National Fire Protection Association requires a dead front on electrical panelsBeing that your report does not make any mention to this it is evident that the inspection was not fully completed
We are still requesting a full refund
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Please note that all comments are made in compliance with Heimer Engineering’s privacy policy (***) and in keeping with our ethical obligations (***) Both of these limit our ability to respond in this public forum
Heimer Engineering is not commenting on why *** *** is not our client, as this is a matter of law Discuss this with your Attorney
It is inappropriate to provide answers to your technical questions in a public forum In any event, these questions have been answered in the past You are just asking them again, with some embellishment
Heimer Engineering has an obligation to point out that your comments about sparks and permits for attic wiring are your own personal opinion and are not based on any Engineering analysis Heimer Engineering provided to you Nobody reading your response should incorrectly assume your opinions are quoting from a report provided by a Licensed Professional Engineer Anyone with questions about wiring should consult a Licensed Electrician or a Licensed Professional Engineer (depending on the question) Nobody should take anything written in this response as professional advice

Heimer Engineering’s inspections are governed by a written agreement and our policies, including Heimer Engineering’s privacy policy (***). Based on the privacy policy, the fact that *** *** has
made public complaints waves all privacy rights, and she has given us the right to respond to the Revdex.com
*** *** made a bizarre request that *** *** be added to the pre-inspection agreement after the inspection was performed. *** *** asked me to write *** ***'s name on the agreement after *** *** had attempted to file a complaint with the RevDex.com. Since this is a question of law and not relevant to the complaint, there is nothing to respond to
Someone who was identified to us as *** *** has written multiple bad reviews about Heimer Engineering on the Web. For example, see ***. See *** for further information on reviews. Because of all the conflicting information from the reviews and our records, a brief summary of the complaint is needed before we respond
Heimer Engineering performed an inspection for *** ***. During the inspection, the inspecting Engineer pointed out a number of issues, including some defective wiring. *** *** later called, and asked about the wiring issue. Because *** *** had the report (he quoted from it during the conversation) and stated that he was our client, we never checked to see if *** *** was the client. The initial report failed to fully detail the wiring issue. A revised report was issued subsequent to *** ***’s that included the wiring issue
*** *** later called back and was furious that the inspecting Engineer could not cite a specific code violation. (This is a pre-purchase inspection report, and citing code violations is not part of the inspection report). *** *** stated that the wiring issue and a missing circuit breaker panel cover were omitted from the report. He also stated that the seller was unwilling to make any adjustments for the wiring problems in the report, which is an apparent contradiction to his previous statement that the wiring problem was missing from the report. *** *** stated that a missing circuit breaker panel cover was omitted. (The actual issue is the labelling of the panel, which is in the report)
During this call, *** *** stated that he showed the Engineer the issues, implying the Engineer was unable to find any problems on his own. This is a change from *** ***’s initial calls where he stated the Engineer pointed out the issues. *** *** has maintained this position ever since
*** *** demanded a refund of the inspection fee. *** *** stated that if we did not refund the inspection fee, he would post bad reviews of Heimer Engineering, file complaints, and get his lawyer involved. It was during this part of the conversation that I retrieved further inspection records and discovered that *** *** was not our client. I immediately told *** *** that I could not speak to him any further. *** *** became very agitated by this statement, and continued talking. I attempted to explain what was needed (*** ***’s written authorization) but *** *** continued speaking. I raised my voice to attempt to get *** *** to listen, but he continued speaking After *** *** talked about how we needed to refund the inspection fee and how he was going to file complaints and post reviews for a while, I told him I could not discuss this any further and the conversation ended
*** *** is not the first client who has threatened to post a bad review if we did not do something. Other clients have asked us to make changes in reports so they could negotiate better, which we would not do. As Licensed Professional Engineers, we uphold certain ethical standards (see ***)
There is no basis to refund of an inspection fee because a seller will not make concessions. There is no basis to refund an inspection fee so a client will not post bad reviews

We requested more details and documentation supporting your allegations Such documentation would include receipts for repairs, code violations from the City of New York supporting your statement that the water meter was not code compliant The response repeated the same information that
was in your original contact Without details and supporting documentation, there is nothing for us to respond to

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
  
Based on your comments you are mistaken.
The issues in question were pointed out to your inspecting agent, which is the position that myself and [redacted] have taken from the beginning.
[redacted] is in fact your customer and has full authority over this report, you will note the purchase of this unit will be cooperative between [redacted] and myself. He was unable to be present during the inspection time therefore my signature is on the documentation.You will also note the form of payment stating [redacted].  
We, together are requesting a refund for service preformed as it was inferior and  vague. Based on the inspection report several checklist items were not included. You will note on your standard report section titled "Utility" subsection A - "Electric Service and Panel" some hazardous items were not included in the original report and failed to be adequately addressed in the revision. These include, the fuse panel is missing it's cover - as you are aware this is a potential fire hazard as the metal cover is used to contain sparks in the event there is a short circuit. Without the cover, in the event of a failure, sparks could have the potential for fire. This is not an issue of labeling as you are currently stating it. 
Additionally, the wiring in the attic was most likely not done under the use of an electrical permit, based on your revision it is impossible for the seller to understand the level of the work required to make repairs. Both of these concerns were pointed out to the inspecting engineer at the time of  assessment.      
[redacted] had contacted the inspecting engineer to discuss the vague comment on the attic wiring, the engineers comments were as follows:           
- He was unaware of the exact issue in the attic only that it was Romex wiring           
- He had estimated the repair cost high           
My question to you is how could an engineer possibly estimate a repair cost if he was unaware of the exact issue in the attic? and if in fact you are you are stating that the secondary revisions were made based per our request rather then an oversight on your part this would violate the policy that you have referred to, Based on the above it is definitively clear that the inspection was not completed appropriately and left out several items that are part of your standard checklist. [redacted]s correspondence with you was only to clarify the comments you had made in the report, being that you were unable to clarify or expand on any of the issues we are requesting a full refund. 
Additionally, [redacted] had never made any comments as to posting bad reviews of your company, he did so in fact post truthful reviews on the work that your company had completed. 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

The 
Item 13 on page 32 of report file number [redacted] states that there is no water meter present during the inspection.
The reason I requested verification was that you were going beyond a general complaint and into specifics of what was in the report.  Responding to this without verifying that you are the client would violate our privacy policy.  Hence, the request for verification.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

The 2 attachments show that services were made and paid to update the water meter to city code and registration. This should be sufficient but if it is not I will inquire with the city for a notification letter.
It is disappointing that a response only comes through a complaint on the Revdex.com.
Thank you
[redacted]
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

[You are correct it is stated where you mentioned, which is obviously incorrect based on the claim and the proof provided. Anyway, you have succeeded to exhaust this process of a customer citing poor inspection (twice). We have reviewed other comments of Heimer and should have done our homework before using your company. We will be happy to add to the comments and ensure to mention our experience to other home owners. Thank you for your time.]
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Heimer Engineering did an inspection of a house I was looking at. The engineer arrived on time and was very professional. Unfortuantely, the seller was a jerk. The seller tried to get the engineer to agree not to check some things and to tell the seller what was wrong first. The engineer was extremely professional and did not seem flustered despite the seller's outrageous behavior. The seller finally gave up and left.

And this is why the seller acted like this. Heimer Engineering found termite damge to the structure, dangerous wiring, an old boiler, a leaky hot water heater, and that's just in the basement. I'm not buying that house at all. Thank you Heimer Engineering.

Review: My wife ([redacted]) and I purchased a residence in Brooklyn in June 2013. Before closing Heimer inspected the house twice to ensure the house is up-to-code and highlight any issues with the dwelling. We believe that there were numerous issues with Heimer should have raised that cost us to repair and replace. I contacted Heimer and corresponded via email (with [redacted]) but the correspondence has ended with no response from Heimer. The issues that I outlined were

1) water meter - after moving in and upon registering with the city, learned that it was illegally installed and not to code requiring both to occur by a certified plumber.

2) heating system - faulty eletrical issues throughout the winter (both unit and temp gauge) and were repaired/replaced by a certified electrician.

3) back gutter/drainage - old gutter without proper water flow through hit the ground and basement. this was also completely replaced.Desired Settlement: We were charged $500+ for each inspection reaching a cost of approx $1100. We believe that at least half of the total amount should be refunded. We were recommend to Heimer but unfortunately do not believe we received adequate service.

Business

Response:

We requested more details and documentation supporting your allegations. Such documentation would include receipts for repairs, code violations from the City of New York supporting your statement that the water meter was not code compliant. The response repeated the same information that was in your original contact. Without details and supporting documentation, there is nothing for us to respond to.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

The 2 attachments show that services were made and paid to update the water meter to city code and registration. This should be sufficient but if it is not I will inquire with the city for a notification letter.

It is disappointing that a response only comes through a complaint on the Revdex.com.

Thank you

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

The

Item 13 on page 32 of report file number [redacted] states that there is no water meter present during the inspection.

The reason I requested verification was that you were going beyond a general complaint and into specifics of what was in the report. Responding to this without verifying that you are the client would violate our privacy policy. Hence, the request for verification.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

[You are correct it is stated where you mentioned, which is obviously incorrect based on the claim and the proof provided. Anyway, you have succeeded to exhaust this process of a customer citing poor inspection (twice). We have reviewed other comments of Heimer and should have done our homework before using your company. We will be happy to add to the comments and ensure to mention our experience to other home owners. Thank you for your time.]

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Review: This is a complaint in regard to complaint # [redacted].

Because [redacted] is not on the contract and [redacted] refuses to add him to contract I am reopening the case as the customer listed on the contract and payment form.

Based on the fact that [redacted] has refused to accommodate we are still pursuing a refund for services that were inferior. Please read [redacted]'s Original complaint details.Desired Settlement: Refund for services

Business

Response:

Heimer Engineering’s inspections are governed by a written agreement and our policies, including Heimer Engineering’s privacy policy ([redacted]). Based on the privacy policy, the fact that [redacted] has made public complaints waves all privacy rights, and she has given us the right to respond to the Revdex.com.

[redacted] made a bizarre request that [redacted] be added to the pre-inspection agreement after the inspection was performed. [redacted] asked me to write [redacted]'s name on the agreement after [redacted] had attempted to file a complaint with the Revdex.com. Since this is a question of law and not relevant to the complaint, there is nothing to respond to.

Someone who was identified to us as [redacted] has written multiple bad reviews about Heimer Engineering on the Web. For example, see [redacted]. See [redacted] for further information on reviews. Because of all the conflicting information from the reviews and our records, a brief summary of the complaint is needed before we respond.

Heimer Engineering performed an inspection for [redacted]. During the inspection, the inspecting Engineer pointed out a number of issues, including some defective wiring. [redacted] later called, and asked about the wiring issue. Because [redacted] had the report (he quoted from it during the conversation) and stated that he was our client, we never checked to see if [redacted] was the client. The initial report failed to fully detail the wiring issue. A revised report was issued subsequent to [redacted]’s that included the wiring issue.

[redacted] later called back and was furious that the inspecting Engineer could not cite a specific code violation. (This is a pre-purchase inspection report, and citing code violations is not part of the inspection report). [redacted] stated that the wiring issue and a missing circuit breaker panel cover were omitted from the report. He also stated that the seller was unwilling to make any adjustments for the wiring problems in the report, which is an apparent contradiction to his previous statement that the wiring problem was missing from the report. [redacted] stated that a missing circuit breaker panel cover was omitted. (The actual issue is the labelling of the panel, which is in the report).

During this call, [redacted] stated that he showed the Engineer the issues, implying the Engineer was unable to find any problems on his own. This is a change from [redacted]’s initial calls where he stated the Engineer pointed out the issues. [redacted] has maintained this position ever since.

[redacted] demanded a refund of the inspection fee. [redacted] stated that if we did not refund the inspection fee, he would post bad reviews of Heimer Engineering, file complaints, and get his lawyer involved. It was during this part of the conversation that I retrieved further inspection records and discovered that [redacted] was not our client. I immediately told [redacted] that I could not speak to him any further. [redacted] became very agitated by this statement, and continued talking. I attempted to explain what was needed ([redacted]’s written authorization) but [redacted] continued speaking. I raised my voice to attempt to get [redacted] to listen, but he continued speaking. After [redacted] talked about how we needed to refund the inspection fee and how he was going to file complaints and post reviews for a while, I told him I could not discuss this any further and the conversation ended.

[redacted] is not the first client who has threatened to post a bad review if we did not do something. Other clients have asked us to make changes in reports so they could negotiate better, which we would not do. As Licensed Professional Engineers, we uphold certain ethical standards (see [redacted]).

There is no basis to refund of an inspection fee because a seller will not make concessions. There is no basis to refund an inspection fee so a client will not post bad reviews.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

Based on your comments you are mistaken.

The issues in question were pointed out to your inspecting agent, which is the position that myself and [redacted] have taken from the beginning.

[redacted] is in fact your customer and has full authority over this report, you will note the purchase of this unit will be cooperative between [redacted] and myself. He was unable to be present during the inspection time therefore my signature is on the documentation.You will also note the form of payment stating [redacted].

We, together are requesting a refund for service preformed as it was inferior and vague. Based on the inspection report several checklist items were not included. You will note on your standard report section titled "Utility" subsection A - "Electric Service and Panel" some hazardous items were not included in the original report and failed to be adequately addressed in the revision. These include, the fuse panel is missing it's cover - as you are aware this is a potential fire hazard as the metal cover is used to contain sparks in the event there is a short circuit. Without the cover, in the event of a failure, sparks could have the potential for fire. This is not an issue of labeling as you are currently stating it.

Additionally, the wiring in the attic was most likely not done under the use of an electrical permit, based on your revision it is impossible for the seller to understand the level of the work required to make repairs. Both of these concerns were pointed out to the inspecting engineer at the time of assessment.

[redacted] had contacted the inspecting engineer to discuss the vague comment on the attic wiring, the engineers comments were as follows:

- He was unaware of the exact issue in the attic only that it was Romex wiring

- He had estimated the repair cost high

My question to you is how could an engineer possibly estimate a repair cost if he was unaware of the exact issue in the attic? and if in fact you are you are stating that the secondary revisions were made based per our request rather then an oversight on your part this would violate the policy that you have referred to, Based on the above it is definitively clear that the inspection was not completed appropriately and left out several items that are part of your standard checklist. [redacted]s correspondence with you was only to clarify the comments you had made in the report, being that you were unable to clarify or expand on any of the issues we are requesting a full refund.

Additionally, [redacted] had never made any comments as to posting bad reviews of your company, he did so in fact post truthful reviews on the work that your company had completed.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

Please note that all comments are made in compliance with Heimer Engineering’s privacy policy ([redacted]) and in keeping with our ethical obligations ([redacted]). Both of these limit our ability to respond in this public forum.

Heimer Engineering is not commenting on why [redacted] is not our client, as this is a matter of law. Discuss this with your Attorney.

It is inappropriate to provide answers to your technical questions in a public forum. In any event, these questions have been answered in the past. You are just asking them again, with some embellishment.

Heimer Engineering has an obligation to point out that your comments about sparks and permits for attic wiring are your own personal opinion and are not based on any Engineering analysis Heimer Engineering provided to you. Nobody reading your response should incorrectly assume your opinions are quoting from a report provided by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Anyone with questions about wiring should consult a Licensed Electrician or a Licensed Professional Engineer (depending on the question). Nobody should take anything written in this response as professional advice.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

Your response does not resolve that we are requesting a full refund for inferior service.

In response I have attached a copy of the OSHA fact sheet on Electrical Panel Accessibility and Enclosure of Live Parts, you will note that under OSHA Standard (29 CFR 1910.305(d)) and National Electrical Code (NFPA 70 110.27) from the National Fire Protection Association requires a dead front on electrical panels. Being that your report does not make any mention to this it is evident that the inspection was not fully completed.

We are still requesting a full refund.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Review: A home inspection was done and was not done properly. a walkway on the side of the house has 2 bad Ibeams. the metal is warped and one of the ibeams is missing a big chunk of the ibeam. this company stated many time on its website they are structural engineers and they missed this structural issue. which I feel could turn into a safety issue. have been trying to work with the company to resolve this issue but seems to be trying to play word games and mix matching what was actually checked.Desired Settlement: I want this walkway repaired correctly so its safe

Business

Response:

We already responded to the client regarding this issue.

I had a great experience with Heimer Engineering. They found many defects that the seller tried to hide, including water in the basement, termite damage, a leaking boiler, and a leaking roof. I did not buy that house. I found another house and Heimer inspected it. They found a few problems, and I bought the house. I have lived there 15 years, and Heimer was 100% correct. I am now buying another house, and found this review when searching for Heimer on the internet. I don't know what the guy above was talking about. I have no complaints.

A home inspection was done and was not done properly. a walkway on the side of the house has 2 bad Ibeams. the metal is warped and one of the ibeams is missing a big chunk of the ibeam. this company stated many time on its website they are structural engineers and they missed this structural issue. which I feel could turn into a safety issue. have been trying to work with the company to resolve this issue but seems to be trying to play word games and mix matching what was actually checked.