M. E. Johnson & Associates

Review: [redacted] directed me to [redacted] office, and explained that I was required to hire an [redacted] that would conduct a site inspection, specifically looking for non-conforming site conditions, as a precursor to [redacted] loan approval. That person’s responsibility would be two fold, first they would inspect the property and through an inspection report relay to me what renovations would be required to make the property conform to the [redacted] loan requirements, and secondly that person would act as a Project Manager, meeting with and coordinating the on-site work of a General Contractor, as our representative, and assuring the contracted work met with the [redacted] requirements. For this work, I was told that I needed to compensate [redacted] $500, which I did by way of a check drawn on our [redacted] account, dated 9/25/14.

Subsequently, the [redacted] Appraiser discovered an existing, non-conforming site condition approximately one week prior to the November closing, which caused our [redacted] loan application to be denied. As a licensed expert in the field of [redacted] loan conformance inspections, [redacted] should have brought the non-conforming site issue to my attention in his report of the property. At that time I could have made a decision to move forward, to withdraw, or at the very least discuss my options with [redacted]. With-out this information I continued to proceed with the acquisition which entailed additional real costs, travel expenses, time expenditures, and lost opportunities. The second part of [redacted]'s responsibilities regarding [redacted] was never required.

You were compensated in full and your failure to report an existing, non-conforming site condition caused me personal monetary damages.Desired Settlement: An equitable resolution to this matter would be for [redacted] to refund my $500. That is merely a return of the monies I have already paid for his services.