HM Capital Group LLC

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/05/11) */
HM Capital had no dealings in this property, as stated above by the compliant. The property was sold by a previous company IAAI, LLC to the customer and construction done by Dovetail Homes, LLC. It was a remodeled home built over 100 years...

ago. It was marketed as a mostly rebuilt house, and the buyer had the property inspected fully before purchasing as did the City. We do give a 1 year warranty on all work after the sale of the property, but this sale was over 3 years ago. Although the matter is unfortunate, this is the reason homebuyers are encouraged to hire reputable home inspectors that would have found the issue and we could have corrected at the time. The buyer has then made the decision to do the work without letting us look at it to determine any other course of action, like re-venting through the roof. Rather he made the decision to upgrade his systems without the ability to inspect the issue prior. As to being marketed as fully remodeled and all structural issues addressed, the property was marketed as an updated home that was built in 1891. The listing is attached and there is no way we would market a home that old as such, there is no way to warranty a home that old.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/05/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The representative parties of HM Capital are the same representative parties that performed the work on [redacted]. A professional inspector was hired for this property, however the work completed during renovation limited visibility to the severity of the venting issue.
Representing that the home has been updated insinuates that changes were done to code. The fact a city inspector and professional real estate inspector missed the venting issue should not absolve the selling party of their responsibility to accurately represent their workmanship. The roof was replaced and the resulting metal cap was placed directly over where the chimney should have vented the potentially harmful gases.
The health concern of the harmful gases did not allow for a drawn out solution. We contacted three HVAC companies, all of which recommended replacing the systems for a direct vent to avoid the additional cost of venting through the roof. The most cost effective solution was chosen and pursued to avoid any additional health risks. As stated the home was built prior to 1900 and all HVAC companies believed managing a new venting solution through that chimney would add significant cost.
Debris was removed from the attic, new insulation was installed in the attic, and a new roof was installed. All three required signification work in and around the assumed vent through the roof. I can only assume the counterparty was negligent in their oversight during the renovation process that created health risks while occupying the property.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 19, 2015/06/08) */
I've been traveling and wasn't able to respond to the latest response from HM capital.
The metal cap wasn't removed because it covers a roughly 5foot by 7foot section of the roof. The peak of the chimney was removed during renovation and roofed over.
I contacted and received written and verbal quotes from 3 HVAC companies. All of which stated the cheapest resolution would be through replacing the appliances. The chimney had deteriorated due to insufficient venting and required significant maintenance. A chimney liner is $500+ dollars, to state the repair would be $500-$1500 misrepresents actual costs incurred by the consumer.
It is not logical and reasonable to allow the representative parties of a past, and now present, business to claim ignorance as a defense against homeowner safety.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 21, 2015/06/09) */
The flat 5' by 7' portion of the roof was the original design and was not removed by us. That was the condition of the roof when we purchased the property from the previous seller. We did not alter the shape or style of the roof in any fashion, only replaced exisiting conditions. My point being made that we can't warranty a house built in 1800's for all existing conditions. Especially not a company that was not involved in the transaction