Ingraffia Home Inspections

Review: I hired [redacted] to do a home inspection of a property prior to closing the purchase.On Wednesday, October 9th we had a very bad rainstorm in Mission Viejo. During that rainstorm, we had water leaking through the interior frames of the patio door, main window and kitchen bay windows. Note not through any window cracks, but dripping through the frames and molding, etc. Thus water was getting in the walls somehow. We spent all night mopping up to make sure the new wood floors did not get damaged. When I looked at what was happening the next day, I looked at the patio cover from the upstairs windows vantage point, as well as from a step-ladder and crawling on the patio cover close-up. Various places the wood beam connecting the patio cover to the house wall was rotted that was against the house, and there were pockets for the rain water to collect. The collected water was then seeping into the walls, onto the window frames, and then into the house. The patio door frame became warped. As a temporary cover, there is now roof flashing and roofing compound running the whole house length along this seam now to prevent any further damage and to get us through the winter months ahead. But come spring I am going to have to have the patio cover and support beam removed, and see what damage is behind there and have it repaired. I cannot tell if there is more serious issues as well. We will need new (or at least repaired) patio doors need to be put in. Unfortunately the inspection did not point any of this out. No was no commentary of how degraded the house attachment to the house was. I was present at the inspection, and in retrospect [redacted] never looked at this, which covers 25% of the home exterior. Unfortunately this was not reviewed and is actually instead listed as in "Satisfactory" shape. Obviously, this is an expensive undertaking to replace this patio cover, and more importantly the water damage risks.Desired Settlement: I contacted [redacted] about his mistake and the need to work with him (and his insurance company) to work the repairs.Unfortunately his response was that regardless of the omission he did the best he could, and that his "Pre-Inspection Agreement" absolves him of any damages from things not detected. I told him that this is not merely something missed, but a negligent aspect of the inspection. this is a key point in any home inspection, and his Report has a section dedicated to it in fact.

Business

Response:

Reference ID

Please be advised

that [redacted] Home Inspections LLC failed to receive your initial complaint letter

dated 11/21/2013 as the mailing address listed was incorrect. The referenced pre inspection agreement and

inspection report delivered to [redacted] reflects our current business

address and thusly we are unclear why the wrong address was used.

The home inspection at [redacted],

Mission Viejo was performed diligently and all items disclosed under the scope

of work were inspected. These home inspections are visual inspections only,

and which items are readily visible are evaluated. On page 9 of

the inspection report under “Caulking” condition the following was checked

and noted: “X Recommend caulking around

windows/doors/masonry ledges/corners/utility penetrations”.

The initial inspection showed no signs of

moisture intrusion within the house from the areas listed by Mr. [redacted]. The

leaks and areas of concern occurred 4 months after the inspection. It would be

up to Mr. [redacted] to show that his areas of concern were part of the original inspection.

The last section

of the pre inspection agreement

clearly states the scope of work and also states that, “The

parties agree and understand that the Inspector and its employees and its

agents assume no liability or responsibility for the costs of repairing or

replacing any unreported defects or deficiencies either current or arising in

the future or any property damage, consequential damage or bodily injury of any

nature. The parties agree and understand the Inspector is not an insurer or

guarantor against defects in the structure, items, components, or systems

inspected. INSPECTOR MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS

FOR USE, CONDITION, PERFORMANCE OR ADEQUACY OF ANY INSPECTED STRUCTURE, ITEM,

COMPONENT, OR SYSTEM. In the event of a claim by the Client that an installed

system or component of the premises which was inspected by the Inspector was

not in the condition reported by the Inspector, the Client agrees to notify the

Inspector at least 72 hours prior to repairing or replacing such system or

component. The Client further agrees that the Inspector is liable only if there

has been a complete failure to follow the standards adhered to in the report or

State/Province law. Furthermore, any legal action must be brought within two

(2) years from the date of the inspection, or will be deemed waived and forever

barred.”

Mr. [redacted] made

the repairs reflected in his email stating he had sealed all the stated areas

of concern with tar thus making it impossible to view, he also waited almost 4

months after the incident to occur to make a complaint to my company not 72

hours which was stated in the signed pre inspection agreement.

Below are copies of my responses to emails received

from Mr. [redacted] and my recommendations made to him regarding his

situation, (all emails between myself

and Mr. [redacted] can be forwarded to you upon request).

1st

Response: I am very sorry to hear about some concerns you are having with

the house. The listed concerns from your email reflect items that are not

warranted by the physical inspection but should have been disclosed and

repaired by the seller/flipper who did the doors and windows and or the termite

company for the patio cover. The visual inspection of the home inspection does

not allow us to determine wood damage or probe areas of concern. We cannot

determine window or door leaks during the inspection and have no way of telling

if the windows and doors were installed correctly. If the rear house was sealed

that means the seller should have disclosed a previous problem in the TDS you

received from them. To clarify, these issues are seller related, termite

related, and are out of the scope of inspection. I would ask the

invester/seller to fix the items.

2nd

Response: [redacted], I am unsure the course of action you wish to take

regarding the inspection. My inspection and items found were done to the best

of my ability. The report and inspection hold no warranty or guarantee which is

also stated on the report. This situation has nothing to do with the inspection

and should be brought to the seller’s attention as the patio cover, doors and

windows were most likely installed and or repaired by them, and again the patio

cover should have been disclosed on the termite report if it was a potential

concern at the time of sale. If those avenues do not work, I would believe that

your home warranty which your agent bought you might fix the items you have

concerns about, vs going through your home owners insurance.

I hope this information helps you. No home

inspection company is a guarantee of any kind to ensure a house is perfect, and

some items do come up through potential wear or become damaged quickly. The

patio cover was observed and my opinion was stated in the report from what I

could see or view.

Final Response: I feel that we are currently at

an impasse and it appears that there is more involved here than meets the eye.

My final advice is for your legal counsel and yourself to review

the Pre Inspection Agreement dated June 18, 2013 and also the final report and

proceed at your discretion.

A copy of the inspection report is attached for your clarification.

Regards,

[redacted] Home Inspections LLC

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response 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.

[redacted]’s response is not accurate and does not

reflect the primary issue at hand – namely there was negligence in the

Inspection that has led to serious issues.

I will respond in-line to his comments below, please see initials [MJ].

[[redacted]] The home inspection at [redacted],

Mission Viejo was performed diligently and all items disclosed under the scope

of work were inspected. These home inspections are visual inspections only, and

which items are readily visible are evaluated. On page 9 of the inspection report

under “Caulking” condition

the following was checked and noted: “X Recommend caulking around windows/doors/masonry

ledges/corners/utility penetrations”.

[MJ] Important

to note that [redacted] did not view the patio cover as he was hired to do; so when he says ”all

items disclosed under the scope of work were inspected” is not a true statement. He did

not perform the task he was hired for in a diligent manner as he portrays. I was there with [redacted] and walked with him for

the inspection – he at no time had a ladder to look at the patio

cover connection to home. This is the

fundamental negligent aspect of the Inspection that has yielded the problems we

have now. The issue was easily accessible, easily visible, it was in the scope of work I hired him for - it was not performed..

[MJ]

[redacted] additionally points out a Report section unrelated to the area that was to

be inspected. There is in fact a Inspection

Report section dedicated to Patio Covers on page 4. In that section he lists the patio cover state

as Satisfactory (his best rating), and although his Report template in this

section also has a place to note problems with improper connection to the house, it was also not noted. It is

important to note that his own Report template has this item in the scope of

work he is to check, and he did not perform it.

[[redacted]] The initial inspection showed no signs of

moisture intrusion within the house from the areas listed by Mr. [redacted]. The

leaks and areas of concern occurred 4 months after the inspection. It would be

up to Mr. [redacted] to show that his areas of concern were part of the original

inspection.

[MJ] Indeed there was no moisture presented,

until it rained. This is when the

improper connection of the patio cover and open holes in the home stucco was first

revealed to me. An example picture of

this easily visible construction defect is provided. This should have been revealed at the

Inspection had it been viewed as was expected.

When I approached [redacted] with the issue, he made no effort, offer or

interest to come and review the issues.

His approach from the initial engagement has been to avoid any

responsibility for the Inspection omission and instead suggest seeking others to remedy

the damages.

[[redacted]]

The last section of the pre

inspection agreement clearly

states the scope of work and also states that, “The parties agree and understand that the

Inspector and its employees and its agents assume no liability or responsibility

for the costs of repairing or replacing any unreported defects or deficiencies

either current or arising in the future or any property damage, consequential

damage or bodily injury of any nature. The parties agree and understand the

Inspector is not an insurer or guarantor against defects in the structure,

items, components, or systems inspected. INSPECTOR MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS

OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS FOR USE, CONDITION, PERFORMANCE OR ADEQUACY OF

ANY INSPECTED STRUCTURE, ITEM, COMPONENT, OR SYSTEM. In the event of a claim by

the Client that an installed system or component of the premises which was

inspected by the Inspector was not in the condition reported by the Inspector,

the Client agrees to notify the Inspector at least 72 hours prior to repairing

or replacing such system or component. The Client further agrees that the

Inspector is liable only if there has been a complete failure to follow the

standards adhered to in the report or State/Province law. Furthermore, any

legal action must be brought within two (2) years from the date of the

inspection, or will be deemed waived and forever barred.”

[MJ] As

I noted in my initial effort to work with [redacted] on repairs, he desires his

pre-inspection agreement to absolve his responsibility here. This does not cover negligence.

This

issue with the patio cover was in the scope of work to be inspected, it was easily

visible and easily accessible, and thus should have been presented to us. Matters were made worse by preparing a report

on the Patio Cover condition without appropriately viewing it and instead gave

a misrepresentation of it’s actual state.

This fact is evident in his report “Satisfactory” rating relative to the

actual condition of the cover leaking water in all walls/windows. A Home

Inspection is a key aspect of a home purchase decision. Trust and reliance is put in the Inspector to

do a diligent professional job and be the advocate for their customer, not skip

over such a key aspect where home damage can be.

[[redacted]] Mr.

[redacted] made the repairs reflected in his email stating he had sealed all the

stated areas of concern with tar thus making it impossible to view, he also

waited almost 4 months after the incident to occur to make a complaint to my

company not 72 hours which was stated in the signed pre inspection agreement.

[**] As stated prior, the omissions in the

Inspection did not become evident until a weather storm. When I approached [redacted] with this issue and

need to rectify, he made no effort or interest to come and review the issues. The fact that I had to get flashing up

immediately to avoid further damage does not obviate the issue at hand.

If at any time he wanted to come review the issues, that could have been

done and could replace back the flashing.

I believe anyone would expect the Professional

behavior to be to work to fix the damages from this major Inspection omission,

versus all efforts to avoid it.

[[redacted]] Below

are copies of my responses to emails received from Mr. [redacted] and my recommendations

made to him regarding his situation, (all

emails between myself and Mr. [redacted] can be forwarded to you upon request).

[MJ] The entire email transcript of our

conversation were supplied to the Revdex.com at the initial complaint, versus these few snippets

[redacted] has pasted. Reviewing that email

dialogue, it shows that [redacted] suggests besides being protected from any responsibility

by his Pre-Inspection Agreement (as he does above as well), he suggests that various other people is whom I should seek to be held responsible. He suggests the Seller is responsible – the

Inspection is what a prospective home buyer uses in evaluating purchasing a property

and determining serious flaws like this - i.e. before the sale concludes.

He suggests going after the Termite inspector – this is not a termite

issue, it is a construction defect issue that was easily accessible and

visible at Inspection. He suggests using the Home

Warranty policy I have – this defect and related repairs are not covered by that type of policy. He also

suggests using my homeowners Insurance (vs his business insurance) – again,

these items are not covered by a Homeowner's policy.

The summary is the patio cover connection to the home is a key aspect of a Home Inspection, and is in the expected scope of work. Additionally

it is in his own Inspection work task by nature of his Report Template. Unfortunately, the tasked inspection did not

occur. The report instead misleadingly

gave us a positive rating of the patio cover's condition ahead of our purchase decision,

and not lending us the options we would have had at that time with the Seller. This negligence in the Inspection has led to

the damages described. The communication

I had with [redacted] has left us very disappointed. Instead of stepping up to his mistake and

responsibility to remedy it, he waives his responsibility and at the same time

attempts to shift it to someone else.

This is not what one would expect from a business that is professional

and diligent. Making things right is

what [redacted] Home Inspections is expected to do.

Regards,