Lauterbach, Inc.

Review: We hired [redacted] Lauterbach to conduct an inspection of the septic system at a house we were considering for purchase. He performed an "inspection" in February of 2013 for a fee of $425. However, he did not pump the septic tank for this purpose, something we have since learned is necessary to do in order to get a good understanding of the condition of the tank.In August of 2013, we hired another company to do a routine pumping of the septic tank. When it was pumped, a leak was evident in the seam between the two main parts of the tank. Water was pouring into the tank from this leak between the seams. Further investigation revealed that this leak had been reported to prior homeowner during a routine service visit in 2011. The prior owner had not disclosed this to us.Although the prior homeowner should have informed us of this information, we hired Mr. Lauterbach, as a septic professional, to inspect the system. As he did not conduct the inspection properly, he failed to catch a material flaw with the septic tank. We await a written estimate, but we were told by another septic company familiar with this situation that the sole remedy is a new septic tank something that would cost approximately $6,000.We contacted Mr. Lauterbach with the hope that he would remedy this situation free of charge. He has offered no remedy so far even though we would not be in this situation if he had properly discharged his professional obligations. We relied on his expertise in deciding to purchase this house at the price that we purchased it. That was a mistake. If the septic inspection had revealed the leak, we would have negotiated for the prior owners to put in a new tank or credit us that amount towards the purchase price of the home.Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

Because we relied on Mr. Lauterbach's presumed expertise in asking him to do an inspection of the septic system, and because he failed to catch the problems with the septic tank, we would like him to either: (1) reimburse us for all costs of a new septic tank, installation, permits, dealing with old tank appropriately, etc. or (2) install a new septic tank free of charge in compliance with all laws and regulations and deal safely and appropriately with the old septic tank.

Business

Response:

I would like to start by saying that I did not install this septic system. I have been conducting septic inspections for many years and do not pump the septic tank during by inspections. The buyers at the time were made aware of the fact that I do not pump, I only evaluate what I uncover and can visibly see. In 2011 the owners cleaning company observed that the septic tank was leaking and, therefore, the previous owners were aware of the problem and did not disclose this information at the time of the house sale to [redacted]. Since the sellers were aware of the problem, they should be held responsible for misrepresentation. As I stated in my report, the water level was normal and there were no signs of visible problems. As he stated that I should have pumped the septic tank and would have found the problem, that is not part of my inspection routine and if he wanted the tank to be pumped he should have hired a pumping company...which he was aware of. I performed my test in February 2013, approximately 6 months ago. As you can see from my report (enclosed) that I found broken distribution piping and a setback issue with the existing septic tank. I was not hired to do any repair work or remove the large tree and stump that had previously fallen. When another company's equipment was in the area doing the work, I cannot comment on whether or not the septic system was damaged by others at that time.

In our 60 years of business we have never had a complaint and I stand by my work. Mr. [redacted] is looking for someone to blame and searching for a free installation of a new septic tank. He needs to look elseware and hold the responsible parties liable.

I have notified my lawyer of Mr. [redacted]'s accusations. My lawyer stated I am in no way responsible for any reimbursement.

Sincerely,

[redacted] Lauterbach

My inspection report will be faxed over to [redacted] at [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT ACCEPT the response from the business.)

In their response to our concerns, this company has not offered to help in any way. We are stunned. Further, they misrepresented a material fact: we were not told that pumping is not included in their $425 inspection. We relied on Lauterbach's presumed expertise to conduct a thorough inspection of the septic system precisely in order to avoid unpleasant surprises. He may have been lucky in the past that problems were not discovered after his "inspections" that failed to include pumping the tank...but this time, there was indeed a major problem that his inspection missed. His statement that there were "no signs of visible problems" misses the mark. If he had pumped the septic tank, he very likely would have seen visible problems. But he took a shortcut and thus had no chance to see the problem we have now found...which had been observed also during the last pumping of the tank. Lauterbach's blaming the former homeowner shirks his professional responsibility; it is precisely Mr. Lauterbach's business to discover issues with septic systems when hired to do an inspection, and he failed to do so in this case because of the shortcut he took with his inspection.

With all due respect, we find his lawyer's alleged assertion that Mr. Lauterbach does not owe us anything as reimbursement an inappropriate comment for several reasons. First, Revdex.com is not a court. We filed a complaint with Revdex.com instead of going to court as we sought an alternative resolution to our dispute. Mr. Lauterbach conducted a flawed inspection, and, consequently, we now face an unexpected and unpleasant situation. On that basis alone, we had hoped that Mr. Lauterbach would seek to resolve this issue to demonstrate his professionalism and commitment to maintaining his good name. Hiding behind a banal--and erroneous--lawyer's statement misses the point.

We hope that Mr. Lauterbach will reconsider his stance and work proactively with us to remedy this situation.