HouseInspect

Dear [redacted] ***, Please find attached my response to HouseInspects' letter My reasons for rejecting their response are articulated in detail there I also included in that attachment copies of the majority of the correspondence between myself, HouseInspect, and their attorney in order to demonstrate that my questions have still not been answered by them Regards, [redacted]

April 16, Dear [redacted] ***:Our company has made several attempts to resolve this matter with [redacted] to no availIn fact our file shows approximately to pieces of correspondence between our company, our attorney and [redacted] Enclosed are copies of Houselnspect first response to [redacted] , we can if you like, provide you with “all” of the correspondence that has occurred in this matter[redacted] cannot be satisfied and he continues to make attempts to expand the scope of a Home InspectionOur contract describes the inspection process following ASHI standards in great detail.In [redacted] ’ own opinion he wishes to “rewrite” the home inspection procedures rather than accept what a home inspector does and does not do, however he accepted those terms when he signed our contractNow apparently, he has changed his mind and wants more from our company than a home inspection company is expected to doAn example of this is: he wants a home inspection to include areas behind walls and underground—the ASHI standards states, that home inspectors can only evaluate what can be seen and accessibleHome Inspectors are not permitted to remove walls nor excavate the ground in any area of the propertyThis is clearly stated in [redacted] signed contract.In addition [redacted] wants to impute a warranty with our home inspection report to cover every risk of home ownershipOf course, if that type of warranty existed it would have to cost the consumer thousands of dollarsTo our knowledge, no home inspection company offers such a product to that extent.Our company stands by its written inspection report and contract that we presented to [redacted] .By the way, our contract has a provision that provides any of our clients with recourse if they feel it is needed [redacted] apparently has refused to use that option to handle his complaintWe would welcome [redacted] to that forum and let an unbiased group resolve this matter.This letter will be mailed to all of the agencies that [redacted] has contactedThe Revdex.com, Pennsylvania Department of Consumer Affairs, Delaware County Department of Consumer Affairs and The Attorney General for the state of Pennsylvania.Our company will not accept any future correspondence from [redacted] Although we wish that he will be able to find some peace for himself in this matter.Sincerely,

Dear *** ***,
Please find attached my response to HouseInspects' letter My reasons for rejecting their response are articulated in detail there I also included in that attachment copies of the majority of the correspondence between myself, HouseInspect, and their attorney in order to demonstrate that my questions have still not been answered by them
Regards,
*** ***
Dear *** ***,
Please find attached my response to HouseInspects' letter My reasons for rejecting their response are articulated in detail there I also included in that attachment copies of the majority of the correspondence between myself, HouseInspect, and their attorney in order to demonstrate that my questions have still not been answered by them
Regards,
*** ***

April 16, 2014
Dear [redacted]:Our company has made several attempts to resolve this matter with [redacted] to no avail. In fact our file shows approximately 28 to 30 pieces of correspondence between our company, our attorney and [redacted]. Enclosed are copies of Houselnspect...

first response to [redacted], we can if you like, provide you with “all” of the correspondence that has occurred in this matter.[redacted] cannot be satisfied and he continues to make attempts to expand the scope of a Home Inspection. Our contract describes the inspection process following ASHI standards in great detail.In [redacted]’ own opinion he wishes to “rewrite” the home inspection procedures rather than accept what a home inspector does and does not do, however he accepted those terms when he signed our contract. Now apparently, he has changed his mind and wants more from our company than a home inspection company is expected to do. An example of this is: he wants a home inspection to include areas behind walls and underground—the ASHI standards states, that home inspectors can only evaluate what can be seen and accessible. Home Inspectors are not permitted to remove walls nor excavate the ground in any area of the property. This is clearly stated in [redacted] signed contract.In addition [redacted] wants to impute a warranty with our home inspection report to cover every risk of home ownership. Of course, if that type of warranty existed it would have to cost the consumer thousands of dollars. To our knowledge, no home inspection company offers such a product to that extent.Our company stands by its written inspection report and contract that we presented to [redacted].By the way, our contract has a provision that provides any of our clients with recourse if they feel it is needed. [redacted] apparently has refused to use that option to handle his complaint. We would welcome [redacted] to that forum and let an unbiased group resolve this matter.This letter will be mailed to all of the agencies that [redacted] has contacted. The Revdex.com, Pennsylvania Department of Consumer Affairs, Delaware County Department of Consumer Affairs and The Attorney General for the state of Pennsylvania.Our company will not accept any future correspondence from [redacted]. Although we wish that he will be able to find some peace for himself in this matter.Sincerely,

Dear [redacted], 
Please find attached my response to HouseInspects' letter.  My reasons for rejecting their response are articulated in detail there.  I also included in that attachment copies of the majority of the correspondence between myself, HouseInspect, and their attorney in order to demonstrate that my questions have still not been answered by them.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: House Inspect was hired to complete an inspection on the home I recently purchased. The inspector began his inspection before I arrived at the home, and in the process broke a window before the contract for the service was signed by me. Furthermore, the inspector missed blatantly exposed [redacted] and tube wiring, amongst other electrical hazards within the home that do not adhere to legal code. These electrical issues were obvious to the human eye and out in the open-they should have been noted and detailed in the inspection report. Thankfully, these hazards were noted on an initial visit by an electrical company to quote for inserting new outlet covers. However, as the electrician noted the hazards and exposed [redacted] and tube missed by House Inspect, I had to then hire another company to re-inspect the home to ensure there were no other obvious hazards or flaws with the home that, like the electrical hazards, would have normally been covered in the inspection report but were missed. The quote detailing the electrical hazards missed came to $2,850.00Desired Settlement: The initial quote for the home inspection was $585.00. This included $375.00 for the house inspection, $125.00 for the radon testing, and $85.00 for the termite testing. As the inspector damaged the property before the contract was signed and also missed exposed hazards that could have been life threatening and started a deadly fire if left alone, and another inspection had to be completed to ensure no other hazards had been missed, the original quote provided should be adjusted to include the cost of the radon and termite testing only, or $210.00.

Business

Response:

See Attachment:

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: I have already provided House Inspect with the summary of electrical hazards missed and the cost due to me because of these hazards. I should not have to resupply this paperwork a third time to House Inspect. Furthermore, I do not want another inspection. This offer is too little too late. If House Inspect wanted to offer to re-inspect the appropriate time to make this offer would have been when I initially filed a complaint with them after the inspection, not two months later when we have already settled on the property, had the hazards corrected so we could live there, and have moved in. They would not find issues now because they had to be corrected before we moved in to the home. I could not delay these corrections and be homeless because of their inability to offer resolution in a timely or professional matter.

Regards,

Review: I had a home inspection on 12/7/13 completed by an inspector from House Inspect in [redacted], PA. I closed on the house on 1/16/14 and we moved in on 1/18. Within our first few days of living in the house, after 1 full shower, we observed water coming into the basement from the front corner of the house where there was a small wooden platform built to raise the basement toilet. This continued to occur every few days or so. After further investigation we discovered that it was a plumbing problem rather than water coming through the foundation. In the process of having several plumbers assess the problem and give us estimates for the work that needed to be done, we determined that the main sewage drain leaving the house had a 7” long hole running across the top of it, the sewage line was partially blocked, and there was no stand pipe in the yard near the sidewalk (unlike every other house on our block) from which to access and clear the sewage line. We also discovered from our neighbor that a previous owner of the house had had the same water coming into the basement for several years. After having the sewage pipe excavated between the sidewalk and the street, the plumbers confirmed that this partial blockage and slow drain has likely existed for very many years. And they also discovered that, while they were able to power flush the line clear from where they had excavated, there was still some small break in the pipe somewhere under the street where the sewage had collected and caused the slow drain.

Having the line excavated, a standpipe installed, the line cleared and the pipe inside the house replaced, which was the minimal amount of work necessary to have the sewage made functional, cost me just under $3,400 (which was the lowest of 3 estimates that I received). After talking with the township, I have determined that the pipe repair under the street is also my responsibility since the main in the middle of the street is clear. The estimate I received for this work, which would require taking up the street, projects that it would cost me between $6,000 and $8,000 unless I can prove that someone’s negligence caused the damage.

After talking to my realtor, I contacted House Inspect and filed a client inquiry on 2/19/14 asking why this partial blockage in the sewage line, as well as the lack of external access point to the sewage line near the sidewalk were not discovered during the home inspection. I received a formal reply dated 3/1/14 that included hard copies of portions of the inspection report and booklet that I received after the inspection. These materials indicated that House Inspect had thoroughly covered their liability for any sewer problems since the report rated our 80-year old pipes as “fair,” and since I had no evidence that the blockage had occurred prior to the inspection. They also referred me to the Glossary of terms in my inspection handbook in which it states that they recommend that vacant properties with piping more than 40 years old have a “thorough pre-closing inspection.”

The letter and materials I received were signed, but the letter gave no title, phone number, e-mail address, or any contact information for the signee.

Therefore, after reviewing all the materials carefully, I drafted another letter dated 3/5/14 in which I explained in detail that there were still 2 concerns that were not addressed by their letter or the materials sent with it. I received a quick response to this letter via e-mail which included an attachment of the exact same letter sent to me on 3/1, but with the date “whited-out” and re-dated 3/6/14. This letter as well as all of my previous communications with House Inspect came through a generic company e-mail address. And all of the messages were signed only with the initials “[redacted].”

I replied to the e-mail and asked directly if this was the same letter except with the old date “whited-out” and a new date inserted. “[redacted]” replied simply by saying “yes.” I then replied asking if I could communicate directly with the person who wrote the letter since I still had two concerns that had not been addressed. I was then told by “[redacted]” that I could communicate with that person only through the generic email address.

I have still not received a phone call from, or a phone number to reach anyone at the company other than the number for the front desk. No one has attempted to respond to the specifics of the 2 concerns not addressed by their formal letter. I sent them an e-mail on March 13th which stated that their lack of communication and unwillingness to even speak with me about my concerns was unacceptable to me. This email went unanswered and unacknowledged for 10 days.

Then on March 23rd I sent them another e-mail in which I said that I would be filing this review with the American Society of Home Inspectors, the Revdex.com, [redacted], [redacted], etc. In response to this e-mail I received a letter from their lawyer dated 3/26 warning me that statements creating a false impression are not protected speech and that I should be guided accordingly.

I have tried calling and e-mailing them since receiving this letter and have been told both times that all communications must happen through their attorney.

This unwillingness to have a direct conversation with their customers – a conversation in which the customer simply knows with whom he is speaking – is unacceptable to me. Their promotional brochure and their website both state that their inspectors have been trained to know that their “primary function is to educate the buyers about the property they are considering.” In my experience, sending the buyer highlighted portions of the glossary of terms included in the report in an attempt to communicate important information that was not communicated directly during the inspection itself falls short of their goal. Their inspector could have made it clear to me that their company recommends a "thorough preclosing inspection" for vacant homes with piping over 40 years old. The inspector could have communicated this to me directly during the inspection and he should have explained exactly what such an inspection entailed and why it was important given the condition of the house. I don't believe that it should not have been left for the buyer to find in a glossary of terms.

A potential home buyer should be able to reasonably expect that a house inspector trained specifically to educate his buyer about the home being considered would have at least strongly recommended that an additional inspection of the plumbing and sewage be scheduled given that the house had been vacant for several months and the piping was over forty years old.

I am very sorry that I have used House Inspect for their services and I have serious doubts about the honesty of their stated mission to educate buyers about their properties. Their failure to educate me as a potential buyer has already cost me almost $3,400 with at least another $6,000 of work left to be done.Desired Settlement: I would like House Inspect to speak with me directly about my concerns so that they can either respond to those concerns adequately, or reimburse me for the $3400 that I have already had to spend to have the sewage made functional.

Business

Response:

April 16, 2014Dear [redacted]:Our company has made several attempts to resolve this matter with [redacted] to no avail. In fact our file shows approximately 28 to 30 pieces of correspondence between our company, our attorney and [redacted]. Enclosed are copies of Houselnspect first response to [redacted], we can if you like, provide you with “all” of the correspondence that has occurred in this matter.[redacted] cannot be satisfied and he continues to make attempts to expand the scope of a Home Inspection. Our contract describes the inspection process following ASHI standards in great detail.In [redacted]’ own opinion he wishes to “rewrite” the home inspection procedures rather than accept what a home inspector does and does not do, however he accepted those terms when he signed our contract. Now apparently, he has changed his mind and wants more from our company than a home inspection company is expected to do. An example of this is: he wants a home inspection to include areas behind walls and underground—the ASHI standards states, that home inspectors can only evaluate what can be seen and accessible. Home Inspectors are not permitted to remove walls nor excavate the ground in any area of the property. This is clearly stated in [redacted] signed contract.In addition [redacted] wants to impute a warranty with our home inspection report to cover every risk of home ownership. Of course, if that type of warranty existed it would have to cost the consumer thousands of dollars. To our knowledge, no home inspection company offers such a product to that extent.Our company stands by its written inspection report and contract that we presented to [redacted].By the way, our contract has a provision that provides any of our clients with recourse if they feel it is needed. [redacted] apparently has refused to use that option to handle his complaint. We would welcome [redacted] to that forum and let an unbiased group resolve this matter.This letter will be mailed to all of the agencies that [redacted] has contacted. The Revdex.com, Pennsylvania Department of Consumer Affairs, Delaware County Department of Consumer Affairs and The Attorney General for the state of Pennsylvania.Our company will not accept any future correspondence from [redacted]. Although we wish that he will be able to find some peace for himself in this matter.Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

Dear [redacted], Please find attached my response to HouseInspects' letter. My reasons for rejecting their response are articulated in detail there. I also included in that attachment copies of the majority of the correspondence between myself, HouseInspect, and their attorney in order to demonstrate that my questions have still not been answered by them.

Regards,

They overlooked plumbing problems. I used them for my home purchase. After moved in, I immediately noticed the obvious water noise in the basement. There was a water leak in the main supply line, which costed us $3000 to replace. They say they only examine something visible and the underground lines are out of their scope. They also did not mention the sewage pipe has rust everywhere and are about to replace. Totally no plumbing knowledge. NEVER USE THEM! STAY AWAY!