The complainant contacted our office to have an appraisal completed on her propertyThe complainant described a list of renovations and improvements to the property and instructed the appraiser that the lender was looking for an “as improved” value for the property, which means that the appraisal treats these proposed improvements as being already completeThe appraiser inspected the property on August 15th, beginning inside the house and then being led by the complainant to the outbuildingsDuring the viewing of the outbuildings the appraiser confirmed with the complainant that all these improvements that were described to the appraiser were to be included in the appraisalAfter viewing the outbuildings the appraiser returned to the house and went over the list of improvements again with the homeownerAfter completing the appraisal, the appraiser received a call from the lender inquiring if the appraisal included an “as is” value along with the “as improved” valueThe appraiser responded that it did notShortly after this the appraiser received a call from the complainant who was upset that the report did not include both “as is” and “as improved” valuesThe appraiser explained that this was not a part of the original agreement and there would be an additional fee for a second valueThe complainant agreed that the appraiser should proceed with the amended appraisal including both the “as is” and the “as improved” valuesThe appraiser completed the appraisal and sent it to the complainantAfter subsequent phone calls with the complainant, it was brought to the attention of the appraiser that there was an outbuilding that the appraiser overlooked during inspectionThe appraiser made the assumption while viewing the property that the complainant was showing him all of the outbuildings, and it did not occur to him that there would be other buildings to viewThis is not an excuse for overlooking a building, but rather an explanation as to why this happenedOn realizing that a building was overlooked, the appraiser amended the report to include this building and sent the revised report to the complainantThe appraiser also contacted the lender to ensure that they did not close this file and explained that the appraisal was being amendedThere are two key concerns brought up by the complainant; the first is that the appraisal initially did not include two values (“as is” and “as improved”) and the second concern is the omission of the outbuildingRegarding the first concern, as described above the initial request did not make mention of two values and the fee agreed upon was based on a single value appraisalAfter being instructed to include a second value for this property (the “as is” value) the report was amended to include this value and the increase to the fee reflected our standard quote for a two-value appraisalIt should also be noted that while we often complete appraisals that include two values, we also complete appraisals that include only “as is” values and at other times we complete appraisals with only “as improved” valuesOur instructions for each assignment come from the individual or the lender who orders the appraisal and we rely on them to communicate the requirements for a given assignmentRegarding the second concern, the outbuilding was overlooked and upon realizing this, the appraisal was amended to include the outbuildingThe lender was also contacted at this time in order to ensure that they did not close the file without this amended appraisal in order to avoid any unnecessary loss to the complainant
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I am not experienced in how appraisals work but it took Dustin 3 tries to do an appraisal that should have been done in the 1st place. [redacted] M.I.T. Appraisals state I only asked for a finished appraisal when I didn't know the difference until the bank rejected that & wanted an as is & finished.Needless of what they say Dustin missed 2 buildings & its not my responsibility to escort him to all my buildings its his job.[redacted] I want a refund as I don't think it should take 3 appraisals to complete a job that should have only taken one especially when he doesn't appraisal 2 buildings in the 1st or 2nd appraisal.I look forward to your reply
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The complainant contacted our office to have an appraisal completed on her property. The complainant described a list of renovations and improvements to the property and instructed the appraiser that the lender was looking for an “as improved” value for the property, which means that the appraisal...
treats these proposed improvements as being already complete. The appraiser inspected the property on August 15th, beginning inside the house and then being led by the complainant to the outbuildings. During the viewing of the outbuildings the appraiser confirmed with the complainant that all these improvements that were described to the appraiser were to be included in the appraisal. After viewing the outbuildings the appraiser returned to the house and went over the list of improvements again with the homeowner. After completing the appraisal, the appraiser received a call from the lender inquiring if the appraisal included an “as is” value along with the “as improved” value. The appraiser responded that it did not. Shortly after this the appraiser received a call from the complainant who was upset that the report did not include both “as is” and “as improved” values. The appraiser explained that this was not a part of the original agreement and there would be an additional fee for a second value. The complainant agreed that the appraiser should proceed with the amended appraisal including both the “as is” and the “as improved” values. The appraiser completed the appraisal and sent it to the complainant. After subsequent phone calls with the complainant, it was brought to the attention of the appraiser that there was an outbuilding that the appraiser overlooked during inspection. The appraiser made the assumption while viewing the property that the complainant was showing him all of the outbuildings, and it did not occur to him that there would be other buildings to view. This is not an excuse for overlooking a building, but rather an explanation as to why this happened. On realizing that a building was overlooked, the appraiser amended the report to include this building and sent the revised report to the complainant. The appraiser also contacted the lender to ensure that they did not close this file and explained that the appraisal was being amended. There are two key concerns brought up by the complainant; the first is that the appraisal initially did not include two values (“as is” and “as improved”) and the second concern is the omission of the outbuilding. Regarding the first concern, as described above the initial request did not make mention of two values and the fee agreed upon was based on a single value appraisal. After being instructed to include a second value for this property (the “as is” value) the report was amended to include this value and the increase to the fee reflected our standard quote for a two-value appraisal. It should also be noted that while we often complete appraisals that include two values, we also complete appraisals that include only “as is” values and at other times we complete appraisals with only “as improved” values. Our instructions for each assignment come from the individual or the lender who orders the appraisal and we rely on them to communicate the requirements for a given assignment. Regarding the second concern, the outbuilding was overlooked and upon realizing this, the appraisal was amended to include the outbuilding. The lender was also contacted at this time in order to ensure that they did not close the file without this amended appraisal in order to avoid any unnecessary loss to the complainant.
The complainant contacted our office to have an appraisal completed on her propertyThe complainant described a list of renovations and improvements to the property and instructed the appraiser that the lender was looking for an “as improved” value for the property, which means that the appraisal treats these proposed improvements as being already completeThe appraiser inspected the property on August 15th, beginning inside the house and then being led by the complainant to the outbuildingsDuring the viewing of the outbuildings the appraiser confirmed with the complainant that all these improvements that were described to the appraiser were to be included in the appraisalAfter viewing the outbuildings the appraiser returned to the house and went over the list of improvements again with the homeownerAfter completing the appraisal, the appraiser received a call from the lender inquiring if the appraisal included an “as is” value along with the “as improved” valueThe appraiser responded that it did notShortly after this the appraiser received a call from the complainant who was upset that the report did not include both “as is” and “as improved” valuesThe appraiser explained that this was not a part of the original agreement and there would be an additional fee for a second valueThe complainant agreed that the appraiser should proceed with the amended appraisal including both the “as is” and the “as improved” valuesThe appraiser completed the appraisal and sent it to the complainantAfter subsequent phone calls with the complainant, it was brought to the attention of the appraiser that there was an outbuilding that the appraiser overlooked during inspectionThe appraiser made the assumption while viewing the property that the complainant was showing him all of the outbuildings, and it did not occur to him that there would be other buildings to viewThis is not an excuse for overlooking a building, but rather an explanation as to why this happenedOn realizing that a building was overlooked, the appraiser amended the report to include this building and sent the revised report to the complainantThe appraiser also contacted the lender to ensure that they did not close this file and explained that the appraisal was being amendedThere are two key concerns brought up by the complainant; the first is that the appraisal initially did not include two values (“as is” and “as improved”) and the second concern is the omission of the outbuildingRegarding the first concern, as described above the initial request did not make mention of two values and the fee agreed upon was based on a single value appraisalAfter being instructed to include a second value for this property (the “as is” value) the report was amended to include this value and the increase to the fee reflected our standard quote for a two-value appraisalIt should also be noted that while we often complete appraisals that include two values, we also complete appraisals that include only “as is” values and at other times we complete appraisals with only “as improved” valuesOur instructions for each assignment come from the individual or the lender who orders the appraisal and we rely on them to communicate the requirements for a given assignmentRegarding the second concern, the outbuilding was overlooked and upon realizing this, the appraisal was amended to include the outbuildingThe lender was also contacted at this time in order to ensure that they did not close the file without this amended appraisal in order to avoid any unnecessary loss to the complainant
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I am not experienced in how appraisals work but it took Dustin 3 tries to do an appraisal that should have been done in the 1st place. [redacted] M.I.T. Appraisals state I only asked for a finished appraisal when I didn't know the difference until the bank rejected that & wanted an as is & finished.Needless of what they say Dustin missed 2 buildings & its not my responsibility to escort him to all my buildings its his job.[redacted] I want a refund as I don't think it should take 3 appraisals to complete a job that should have only taken one especially when he doesn't appraisal 2 buildings in the 1st or 2nd appraisal.I look forward to your reply
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The complainant contacted our office to have an appraisal completed on her property. The complainant described a list of renovations and improvements to the property and instructed the appraiser that the lender was looking for an “as improved” value for the property, which means that the appraisal...
treats these proposed improvements as being already complete. The appraiser inspected the property on August 15th, beginning inside the house and then being led by the complainant to the outbuildings. During the viewing of the outbuildings the appraiser confirmed with the complainant that all these improvements that were described to the appraiser were to be included in the appraisal. After viewing the outbuildings the appraiser returned to the house and went over the list of improvements again with the homeowner. After completing the appraisal, the appraiser received a call from the lender inquiring if the appraisal included an “as is” value along with the “as improved” value. The appraiser responded that it did not. Shortly after this the appraiser received a call from the complainant who was upset that the report did not include both “as is” and “as improved” values. The appraiser explained that this was not a part of the original agreement and there would be an additional fee for a second value. The complainant agreed that the appraiser should proceed with the amended appraisal including both the “as is” and the “as improved” values. The appraiser completed the appraisal and sent it to the complainant. After subsequent phone calls with the complainant, it was brought to the attention of the appraiser that there was an outbuilding that the appraiser overlooked during inspection. The appraiser made the assumption while viewing the property that the complainant was showing him all of the outbuildings, and it did not occur to him that there would be other buildings to view. This is not an excuse for overlooking a building, but rather an explanation as to why this happened. On realizing that a building was overlooked, the appraiser amended the report to include this building and sent the revised report to the complainant. The appraiser also contacted the lender to ensure that they did not close this file and explained that the appraisal was being amended. There are two key concerns brought up by the complainant; the first is that the appraisal initially did not include two values (“as is” and “as improved”) and the second concern is the omission of the outbuilding. Regarding the first concern, as described above the initial request did not make mention of two values and the fee agreed upon was based on a single value appraisal. After being instructed to include a second value for this property (the “as is” value) the report was amended to include this value and the increase to the fee reflected our standard quote for a two-value appraisal. It should also be noted that while we often complete appraisals that include two values, we also complete appraisals that include only “as is” values and at other times we complete appraisals with only “as improved” values. Our instructions for each assignment come from the individual or the lender who orders the appraisal and we rely on them to communicate the requirements for a given assignment. Regarding the second concern, the outbuilding was overlooked and upon realizing this, the appraisal was amended to include the outbuilding. The lender was also contacted at this time in order to ensure that they did not close the file without this amended appraisal in order to avoid any unnecessary loss to the complainant.