Marvin H. Schaefer Inspection Service, Inc.

Review: Dear Sir or Ma'amRe: misrepresentation of age of gas furnace during home inspection of a home that was purchased in 2011. This complaint pertains to a home inspection that has been completed for my home that was purchased in 2011 based on the home inspector's findings and the age of the gas heat furnace per the inspector's report.The age of the gas heating furnace was communicated to me to be 10-11 years. Exact wording in report "The age of the unit appears to about: 10-11 years."Now, May 2014, 3 years later I was in the process of having an energy assessment conducted at which time Next Step Living (energy assessment company) and Southern Connecticut Gas notified me that the gas furnace was built in 1993. This puts the age at 18 years at the time of the inspection, not 10 - 11 years per the inspection report. Also, after several tests by both companies it was determined that the unit was producing Carbon Monoxide levels outside of a healthy range. This is a serious health issue if there were any cracks in the unit. My wife and I made an offer on the home based on the age as per the home inspection. Had we known the age of the unit this would have been factored into our price paid for the home. I am seeking assistance from Revdex.com in this matter as I feel the inaccuracy of the home inspection has cost me money, and could have been life threatening based on the carbon monoxide levels produced by the unit.Desired Settlement: I am seeking a just compensation as the age of the furnace is a critical factor in the purchase price of a home. If the furnance was near the end of its useful life, this should have been communicated.

Business

Response:

Our business operates in accordance with the CT Standards and the Code of Ethics for home inspectors. We encourage clients who have questions or issues to contact us directly so we may problem-solve with them. This client did not contact us with his concern. In this case the client had an unknown contractor date the heating unit as being 7 years older than the home, which was constructed in 2000. We have made an appointment with the client for our business owner to investigate this further. Our response to this matter will be contingent upon his finding and will be submitted as soon as we understand how this can be.

Respectfully submitted,

Review: I had this inspection company inspect my home prior to purchase and closed on my house 1 oct 2014. On December 9th the roof began to leak. After contacting the insurance company they[redacted] came out and provided roof inspection. This found their to be 3 layers of roof material present and lack of flashing on the roof. If this was found during the inspection I paid for first off I wouldn't of purchased this house due to it would not of passed criteria for a ** home loan. I have contacted the inspection company and gave them the chance to come out and look at the issue along with 3 layers which my report did not state. The inspection company blew me off and I have not heard from them since. I affording the company to make good on their mistake prior to taking this and making into a legal battle. After only making 2 mortgage payments I am out of pocket 16000 dollars which could of been avoided if the inspector did his job competentlyDesired Settlement: I would like them to have to pay out at least half of what I paid due to this is their fault I am in this position

Business

Response:

Review: In January 2015, [redacted] Inspection completed a home inspection of the house on which we were under contract. The inspector noted the roof was past midlife and should be monitored. The inspector did not indicate the roof was close to its end life.

We closed on the house on April 1, 2015. On April 8, 2015, water started coming through the living room ceiling. We placed a bucket under the leak and called a roofing company. The roofer came out and determined the area of the leak. However, what was a shock to us was what he told us about the overall condition of the roof. There were multiple patch jobs visible, the shingles were deteriorating and many were perforated. His recommendation was to replace the roof. Repairing sections was not a viable option because, overall, the shingles were so brittle, patching new ones into the old ones would cause further damage. Due to the rainy forecast, we needed a temporary fix to the leak until the inspection company could come back. So, a tar patch was put over the suspected area. Once the temporary patch was put on, the leak did not continue to leak, despite rainy days. Obviously, the leak was coming from the area we had patched.

We immediately contacted [redacted] Inspection, and the owner, Bruce S[redacted], came out a week later to take a look. He brought two contractors with him. One was from [redacted] and the other was a local roofing contractor. Both contractors said the shingles were brittle and the roof needed replacing. From ground level, both noted multiple patch jobs as well as other issues. We have a copy of the email the local contractor sent to [redacted] Inspection which supports what he told us that day. However, Mr. S[redacted] did not share that email with us. He only shared a written report from the [redacted] contractor which is a false representation of what the contractor told us in person that day.

A couple weeks later, Mr. S[redacted] and his wife (supposedly a co-owner of the business) returned with yet another contractor who pointed out the same issues to us from the ground. However, after a while, Mrs. S[redacted] told him not to say anything else in front of us. The contractor conferred with Mr. and Mrs. S[redacted] and then came back with an opinion completely different from what he first said.

At the end of April, we received a written response from [redacted] Inspection denying any responsibility. They claimed that because the tar patch was on the roof, there could be no determination of where the leak was coming from and that there inspector had done his job. However, the leak was only the symptom of the bigger problem. The [redacted] home inspection we had done completely missed the overall condition of the roof. Not only that, Mr. S[redacted] was selective in which contractor's opinions he shared and, even those were not accurate representations of what actually occurred.

Furthermore, we obtained reports from several other roofers, all noting similar issues with the roof and recommending it be replaced, not repaired.

In addition, our realtor obtained a home inspection that was done a month prior to ours by buyers that ended up backing out of the sale. This is from a Connecticut licensed home inspection company. That report notes several issues with the roof and that it should be anticipated it will need to be replaced. On the contrary, our inspection only says it is past mid life and should be monitored.

If we had any indication as to the overall condition of the roof, we would certainly negotiated a different price or may have backed out of the deal altogether.

Since then, we have had the roof replaced. It cost us more than $17,000. Although our lawyer says we have a strong case, we do not have money left to pay our lawyer to litigate the case. We are hoping that [redacted] Inspection will do the right thing and compensate us for their gross oversight. Our other option is to sue [redacted] Inspection in Small Claims Court, which we will do if this can't be resolved.Desired Settlement: Partial compensation for new roof

Business

Response:

Hello [redacted],Sorry for the delay in responding. This complaint arrived while we were away for a week. When we came back there were so many things to attend to and I worked to make sure it was a thorough response.