Masters Inn

Dear Revdex.com, RE: ID# *** Please accept this correspondence in response to the complaint submitted by *** ***. The inspection was completed on 7/8/at approximately 10:53am The Buyers, *** and *** ***, along with the realtor were present for the wrap up
to discuss the findings in the inspection report. There were several items that needed to be addresses which were discussed with all parties during the completion phase of this report The contractual obligation which requires all parties signatures is distributed and the Buyer is instructed to read the contract agreement and return a signed copy with payment. In this case, the contract was executed and payment in the amount of $was collected. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the scope of the inspection is limited to a visual inspection. There is a specific clause in the contract that provides information related to non-permitted structures. In this case, the window in question is located in the laundry room which was in a non-permitted remodel within the home, therefore would be exempt and outside of the scope of the contract. Mr*** and I discussed the replacement of the window in the wash room, which was overlooked as to the improper installment. I offered to purchase and replace the window based on a good faith agreementHowever, subsequent conversations with Mr*** and emails proved fruitless. He would digress to foul language and was not allowing me to fix the window and move onI felt bullied by him and his actionsI am a professional and take pride in my work but will not be taken advantage of for the benefit of personal gain The insulation which Mr*** is referring to, wherein he stated that his AC contractor hired reported that he noticed areas of low insulationI,Chuck Williams, went to the residence to discuss Mr*** concernsI requested permission to generate an in depth inspection of the propertyI was told that he was not interested in any additional reporting, he was only concerned about the window. He would not grant me access to the attic to review or re-inspect the area. The AC in question is installed in the laundry room located within the re-modeled area of the homeThis addition adds square footage to the home which we still do not know exactly the size of the homeThe County is listing it a one size and the realtor listing has two different sizes listed. When an inspection is completed we are only required to inspect the age and working condition of the existing unit. It is not within our scope to determine or to provide recommendations related to the size or tonnage of the AC unit when we don’t know the exact square footage. The third and final issue identified in this complaint is the roofThe inspection of the roof noted that it had multiple layers but the roof was relatively new with no evidence of any leaksIdentified in Mr*** report are the items of concern which needed to be correctedAll issues identified are within the standards of the Arizona State Board of Technical Standards. Mr*** is misinformed as to the nature of the insurance that we carry. We do not carry independent insurance outside of our E&O insurance required by the stateFor that we are not covered under our contracts outside of the scope of our employment. Thank you for your time and we look forward to closing this matter

Yes, we were present to discuss the "findings" in the inspection report. Payment was collected after the inspection. What is at issue here is what Mr. [redacted]  DIDN'T find in his report. Yes, we are aware that the scope of the inspection is limited to a visual inspection" . The key word here is "visual". So if the "scope of the inspection is limited to a visual inspection", how was it that Mr. [redacted] missed the window that was installed on its side (turned 90 degrees)? How was it that Mr. [redacted] missed there was pretty much no insulation in the attic? And we had a minimum of FIVE AC contractors who told us there was minimal insulation in the attic and they asked how this even passed inspection.  All FIVE AC companies stated that no inspector would allow the 250 square foot laundry room to be counted as livable space because of the inadequate heating, cooling plus the minimal insulation in the attic. How was it that Mr. [redacted]  missed the "visual" of the size of the AC vent, in the livable space, which would not be adequate enough to call it "livable space"?  We had to put a new AC unit on because the current unit was designed for a 1400 square house, which the house was originally but is now over 1900 square foot.  We had to purchase a new AC unit at a considerable price, again, another area we could have negotiated with the sell had we been made aware by the inspector. Or how was the "visual" missed  of the "duct work" that attached the minimal vent in the "livable space, that was attached by duct tape to a hole cut into the existing AC duct work in the attic? How was the "visual" of the roof missed that it had THREE layers of shingles instead of the TWO the  inspector had stated?  If we would have know there was 3 layers of shingles on the roof, which is not allowed in Maricopa County , we could have negotiated the cost of the roof with the seller. As it was, we spent a great deal of money for a new roof.  When Mr. [redacted] was over to look at the insulation and the window, he ADMITTED he miss these things and said he couldn't believe he missed them. The remodel was permitted. This is the first time that this has ever been brought up by the inspector. And if this was "non permitted remodel space", how was it Mr. [redacted] didn't have a "visual" to realize that the square footage was off from the MLS? Why did Mr. [redacted] check the the vent  and state it was in working order. We discussed on many occasions the replacement of the window. We were told by Mr. [redacted] that they would replace the window.  We and his boss were told that the window was ordered and taken care of. After a considerable amount of time, we had not heard anything from Mr. [redacted] , so we contacted him to discuss when the window was going to arrive. Mr. [redacted] told us he didn't order it and he wasn't going to.  Neither us nor his boss were aware he didn't order the window. I (Cindy),  PERSONALLY, listened to the conversations that Oscar had with Mr. [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] is bold faced lying that Oscar used "foul language and was not allowing me to fix the window and move on". Oscar DID NOT AT ANYTIME USE FOUL LANGUAGE while discussing this with  Mr. [redacted]. or insult him. If this man "felt bullied", he is delusional. He was NOT ever BULLIED.  As for him being a "professional" and "take pride in my work", he might want to go back to school. What "personal gain is he talking about"??? All we have had is personal loss. All that which is stated is FACT. Mr. [redacted] even admitted he missed the items. Mr. [redacted] is lying again. Oscar got him a latter and he looked into the attic. He even stated he couldn't believe he missed the lack of insulation.  Mr. [redacted] offered to bring another inspector over to look at all in question but Oscar said he would let him know if he needed anymore.  We had PROFESSIONALS already check the items in question so there was no need for anymore inspectors as we knew what all was missed and Mr. [redacted] had admitted to his missed items. The AC VENT is in the laundry room, not the AC unit.  In question is also how the duct work, which could be seen standing on a ladder, not entering the attic, with the naked eye, was not attached correctly. Mr. [redacted]  missed that. The AC VENT in the laundry room was inadequate for the square footage. If Mr. [redacted] was concerned about the square foot differing with county records (to which he told us he does not look at the county records), and in question with the AC vent, then why wasn't this addressed with us and the realtors on both sides? He actually didn't even know this. He told us he does not look at the county records listing of the square footage. We were told by our realtor to not "worry as they (Eagle Eye Property Inspections) have insurance" and we "are protected if they miss anything". Wow, another lie. It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] continues to lie in his responses.