Pillar to Post Home Inspection

I did not realize that I would only be given minutes to write my response I am attaching pictures of the item damaged as well as the matching piece I am also attaching the piece they found on ebay and why they claim my pieces are not worth what I am asking them to pay The e-bay piece was on sale for $and currently has a list price of $ I also have e-mails I sent them, as well as texts I sent Brian (the employee that broke the piece), I am sure I can get phone records for the number of times I contacted them as wellI appreciate the service you provided and know I may still not get anyting out of my complaint I know I have other means to pursue if this does not work.Again thank you for your help, [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:I find this response to be consistent with the customer service that Pillar to Post has provided thus far, with no acknowledgement of mistakes made or oversights by their inspector Unfortunately, they do not seem to understand what it means to be committed to customer satisfaction In addition to the oversight with hot water in the first floor bathroom, we had to request that the inspector return and use the infrared scan (included in the benefits of the premium package) in the basement where there had previously been water damage We could have arranged to be present when the inspector returned to do his job, a task that should have taken place in his first visit As was stated in our previous complaint, we would like to have seen the scan to reassure us that the system to prevent further water issues was working Excuse me for mistakenly believing that the infrared was used in the attic, I was trying to acknowledge one instance where the inspector used the tool we were told would be used during his visit to the home However, this only supports my concern that we were sold this "special technology" which was available at the higher price yet we received very little if any benefit from its use!I noticed that there was no mention of our concern that the inspector failed to note previous termite damage in the basement that was visible Our real estate agent spotted it and requested that he take a look and give us feedback This oversight would certainly be a concern to the oversight agency for home inspections if we reported it I need clarification about why Pillar to Post promotes their business with a stated commitment to customer satisfaction We believe that this is misleading since we have experienced that there is very little interest in fulfilling this promiseWe believe that this practice of promising Customer Satisfaction Commitment & Guarantee is a bait and switch ploy It is a deceptive practice and we will be asking the Revdex.com to suggest other ways we can pursue a solution that accomplishes what Pillar to Post claims to provide, that is a remedy that is fair and acknowledges the mistakes that were made in our home inspection If there had been an acceptable response and acknowledgement of these oversights in the first place, we would not have needed to contact the Revdex.com At this point, we will seek additional avenues to educate other consumers so they will not be deceived by a business that claims a commitment to customer satisfaction and seems uninterested in providing even the most basic customer service

As with most complaints there is more to the storyI have no interest in bad mouthing our client who obviously is upset because they are indeed dealing with a very frustrating situationHowever, to "miss" something it had to be present at the time of the inspectionDuring the course of the inspection ALL plumbing was operated for about 10-minutes as well as the washing machine operatedThe client was present for the home inspection and knows this to be trueOnly after all of the plumbing was operated, did we inspect the basement (where the leak presented itself after the client moved in)No leakage was noted during the course of the inspectionAs for returning calls, I was on vacation when the original complaint came in, I returned the call once I returned and went to look at his concerns the same day within hoursthat was a Friday, I returned his call on Monday, which was the following business dayWhile I appreciate that our client is having a very real problem presently, and I sympathize with him because I would find it extremely frustrating as well, it was not present at the time of the inspectionWe can only comment on things that are present during the course of the inspectionWe have no idea, and cannot be held liable for what has happened over the course of the past 1/months since the home was inspected We wish our client the best, and hope the rest the time in his home goes betterSincerely,Neil C*** Co-Owner Pillar to Post

This is a regrettable situation, however, we do not feel that we are liable for this situationThe stained glass that is spoken of was affixed to an exterior door with a suction cupWhen the door was opened in a fashion the suction cup came loose and the item fell to the groundThis was a egress door and was operated in a mannerIf the homeowner did have some sentimental connection or frankly cared about this item, it should have been removed from a functional component of the home that was going to be inspected or moved to a safe location for the inspectionThe item would have fallen off for anyone who opened the doorWe have offered on multiple occasions to give $towards the purchase of a new item as a peace offering, however, the client has refusedWe are happy to follow through with the $we offered but will not be taking this case any further

See attached

We do appreciate the ability to respond to this complaintAs was stated to the client, we are performing the inspection to find major defects in the homeThe client is correct, one of the faucets was not balanced well (hot water vs cold water) however, this is a simple repair (this was even
indicated by the client in their complaint). In addition, the complaint doesn't fall within the ASHI standards of practice to which we adhere toWe are there to determine if there are major defects, and it is entirely impossible to find every minor defect in the homeAs for the special tool that the client is speaking ofThat is the infrared CameraNot only was the unit used during the course of the inspection throughout the home to standards of practice, the clients were showed how the unit worked and given a demonstration in the home, in addition, the attic space is the one area that the camera wasn't used as the temperature variance isn't sufficient to be accurateSo to say that they didn't get the chance to see our "gadget" in use is a complete statementIn addition, they did voice a an additional concern later and were told that the infrared camera would be used again when we picked up the radon monitor to clear up their concernThis was done as well.In closing, we will absolutely not be providing a refund as the inspection was performed to industry standards, and due to their blatant statements of our inspectors performance

Attached is a letter from our attorney explaining our position as previously supplied to the consumerKindly refer all further communications to Mr***

I am rejecting this response because:
The information stated in the response is not accurate. The piece of stained glass was located on a window in an enclosed patio not on a sliding glass doorThere are two sliding glass doors in the patio as well as four sliding glass windows. As to my knowledge as to what will be opened and closed in an inspection it is ridiculous to assume that the seller would be aware of what the inspector is going to do. I was not present at the inspection and therefore had no knowledge of what they would be doing. There was a bar, and a chair in front of the window and I would have never guessed it was going to be opened without looking at the window. I could see a sliding door being opened without paying attention but not, windows with decorations. I did not receive any instructions to remove items from windows prior to the inspection.Further more, Pilar to Post told the realtor it was their fault and they would pay for the damages. My relator was present and will verify this information as well. Also I was never offered $75, I was only sent a picture of a piece on ebay that was selling for either $or $. I responded that it was not the same quality, glass, craftmanship etcand that my piece was an original and not a dupilicated piece. I can send pictures but do not have them here with me and I was told I only had minutes to respond to this response. Also this piece was a matching set, the other piece hung on the sliding part of the window and did not fall, that is how secure it was on the window. It was the piece that hung on the stationary part of the window that fell off when the inspector hit with the sliding window. It was their fault and they need to make full restitution. I will accept $and pay for the shipping and insurance. As I stated it was a matching set and anyone who knows about stained glass pieces, every lot of glass is different in color, just like carpet lots. It cannot be matched and made an identical set with new lot of stain glass pieces. Both pieces will need to be recreated. Finally, I am confused as to why the owner's employee would state he is responsible and would make good on the piece and the owner would not back his employee and say it was my fault, basically because it was my house and my window. This is not the way to do business. What is also unbelievable is that I am asking for fair market value and not an outrageous amount of money. I wonder why MrF* has never contacted me, not even to apologize for the damages his company caused in my home

Complaint: ***
U.SNavy
I
am rejecting this response because I am not satisfied with just being refunded
for the inspection done by Pillar to Post.
I also want a refund if the money for the sewer scope. If you look at the BCC email report that they
gave us, I agree the email was sent, but the sender is a "no-reply"
address and could have possibly gone to a junk folder. My wife and the realtor received the other
two emails listed on that document but never saw the sewer scope. There was no follow up by Pillar to Post to ensure the email was received In addition, in the words of the rebuttal,
the agreement that was signed by my wife, the company states we agreed to a
"written report" being provided.
The physical written report we received had the visual inspection, the
radon inspection, and the termite inspection.
There is not a written sewer scope inspection. I do not believe an email satisfies a
"written report." Especially
since the physical copy we received did have all the other inspections. They failed to provide the sewer scope. Their website also guarantees a printed
report
I
agree that Pillar to Post did try to correct the deficiencies of their original
inspection. However, this was after we
closed on the house. You only have one
shot to do a correct inspection so we lost out on our ability to negotiate a
new price. The quote below is directly
from the Pillar to Post website:
“A
home inspection is particularly important when purchasing a home. Buying a house is likely one of the largest
purchases a person will ever make but few buyers are experienced in building
construction, and overlooking a serious issue could result in a costly problem
down the roadAs a result many buyers choose to have a property inspection
conducted prior to closing the saleThe inspection can identify any issues so
the buyer can discuss these with the seller during negotiations.”
Their
website boasts of the negotiating power a home inspection can have for a
buyer. Considering the fact that I was
deployed, serving my country, and unable to be part of the inspection process,
I put my trust in this company. I am
asking for $to be refunded. I
think that is a small price for this company to pay when they have potentially
cost tens of thousands of dollars worth of repairs that a competent inspector
would have seen and informed us before we closed on the house.
Sincerely,
*** ***

Although we disagree with the consumer’s message dated 2/27/2017, we think it is in both parties interest to resolve this matterAlthough we do not admit any fault, we are willing to refund the consumer in the amount of $640.25. However, we will not issue a check until we have received the attached signed, unaltered release. Upon receipt of the signed release, we will mail a check made payable to *** *** at *** *** *** ** ***

See attached.

I wanted to follow up on the following Complaint ID:  [redacted].  I received a reply back on your website that said the company would refund $640.25 to me after I submitted the general release they attached.  I accept this offer and I returned the signed form to them via email.  I have not heard a response from the company nor have I received the check they promised to mail.  If you could please let me know what the next course of action is for this complaint.  Again, thank you for all the help you have provided in this matter.

We are truly sorry that you were dissatisfied with your inspection. We make every reasonable effort to exceed our clients expectations. As for the infrared camera, you were present for the inspection and were shown how it works, and was used in accordance with our Standards of Practice. The unit was also brought back in at your request when we returned to pick up the radon monitor for another point of your concern.  As for the termite damage that you spoke of. You will find a reference to that damage in your home inspection report indicated as "pest damage". A home inspection report is not a Wood Destroying Insect Inspection, which you were given the opportunity to purchase, and therefor by state requirements, and in accordance with our visual inspection agreement, it has to be in general statements with the recommendation to have evaluated by a qualified pest contractor. This recommendation was given in the report. We wish you the best in the future.

We have been in business 17 years and take complaints very seriously and try to learn from them.In our reports that are printed out for the buyer on site prior to leaving the home and also emailed out to all other parties involved on the same day photographs are included.The photographs show areas...

of concerns with the parapet flashings.   Our Report Commentary,  item 3.1 did call out for the roof and flashings to be evaluated  by a certified roofing contractor.   The below item was cut directly out of the inspection report.3.1 FlashingThe roof to wall flashings are cracked in several areas. Recommend having a certified roofing contractorevaluate the roof and flashings. Repair to reduce moisture penetration and subsequent damages.We are very sorry that this client experienced issues with the roof.     However, if the client had followed the  inspection report recommendation to have the roof and flashngs evaluated and repaired by a certified roofing contractor there would not be an issue.

Our job as a home inspector is to educate the buyer on the true condition of the home.     In doing so, sometimes we make a seller unhappy.    We don't mean too.We look at up to 1600 items in the home during the inspection,  the seller has picked out two items...

that were written up and calls the inspection inaccurate.    There are not inaccuracies to the two items that she mentions.    The full report along with the photographs  has been attache for the Revdex.com's review.  As stated in the complaint,  the seller said that she had had a contractor evaluate the evaporative cooler months prior to the inspection.    She also stated that per our report that we did not operate the unit.We all know that conditions of equipment and homes can change over several months.     As you can tell from the photo on page 39 (last page of the attachment) the evaporative cooler is rusted through at the top of one of the panels.    The other panels were also rusted but had not rusted through at this time.  As stated in the report "The tops of the panels are beginning to rust, one panel has rusted through. Due to the rust, the cooler is considered to be near the end of its life expectancy".    There is not a licensed contractor that would not support our write up on the condition of this unit.    The photo proves that point.As for the garbage disposal,  we can assure the client that this unit was not operable at the time of inspection and this was verified by the buyers Realtor.     This may be due to home being vacant or what ever.  Our write up just noted "The garbage disposal did not operate when tested. Recommend further evaluation and / or repair".     The unit may have just been jammed.  not sure.    I can assure you the buyer did not walk away from the purchase of this home due to the $69.00 garbage disposal not operating.  We completely deny the sellers request for a refund or a re-inspection based on the above facts.   Scott W[redacted]Pillar To Post[redacted]

I did not realize that I would only be given 30 minutes to write my response.  I am attaching pictures of the item damaged as well as the matching piece.  I am also attaching the piece they found on ebay and why they claim my pieces are not worth what I am asking them to pay.  The e-bay piece was on sale for $35 and currently has a list price of $34.50.  I also have e-mails I sent them, as well as texts I sent Brian (the employee that broke the piece), I am sure I can get phone records for the number of times I contacted them as well. I appreciate the service you provided and know I may still not get anyting out of my complaint.  I know I have other means to pursue if this does not work.Again thank you for your help,[redacted]

This is a regrettable situation, however, we do not feel that we are liable for this situation. The stained glass that is spoken of was affixed to an exterior door with a suction cup. When the door was opened in a normal fashion the suction cup came loose and the item fell to the ground. This was a...

normal egress door and was operated in a normal manner. If the homeowner did have some sentimental connection or frankly cared about this item, it should have been removed from a functional component of the home that was going to be inspected or moved to a safe location for the inspection. The item would have fallen off for anyone who opened the door. We have offered on multiple occasions to give $75 towards the purchase of a new item as a peace offering, however, the client has refused. We are happy to follow through with the $75 we offered but will not be taking this case any further.

I am rejecting this response because:I find this response to be consistent with the customer service that Pillar to Post has provided thus far, with no acknowledgement of mistakes made or oversights by their inspector.  Unfortunately, they do not seem to understand what it means to be committed to customer satisfaction.  In addition to the oversight with hot water in the first floor bathroom, we had to request that the inspector return and use the infrared scan (included in the benefits of the premium package) in the basement where there had previously been water damage.  We could have arranged to be present when the inspector returned to do his job, a task that should have taken place in his first visit.    As was stated in our previous complaint, we would like to have seen the scan to reassure us that the system to prevent further water issues was working.  Excuse me for mistakenly believing that the infrared was used in the attic, I was trying to acknowledge one instance where the inspector used the tool we were told would be used during his visit to the home.  However, this only supports my concern that we were sold this "special technology" which was available at the higher price yet we received very little if any benefit from its use!I noticed that there was no mention of our concern that the inspector failed to note previous termite damage in the basement that was visible.  Our real estate agent spotted it and requested that he take a look and give us feedback.  This oversight would certainly be a concern to the oversight agency for home inspections if we reported it.   I need clarification about why Pillar to Post promotes their business with a stated commitment to customer satisfaction.  We believe that this is misleading since we have experienced that there is very little interest in fulfilling this promise. We believe that this practice of promising Customer Satisfaction Commitment & Guarantee is a bait and switch ploy.  It is a deceptive practice and we will be asking the Revdex.com to suggest other ways we can pursue a solution that accomplishes what Pillar to Post claims to provide, that is a remedy that is fair and acknowledges the mistakes that were made in our home inspection.  If there had been an acceptable response and acknowledgement of these oversights in the first place, we would not have needed to contact the Revdex.com.  At this point, we will seek additional avenues to educate other consumers so they will not be deceived by a business that claims a commitment to customer satisfaction and seems uninterested in providing even the most basic customer service.

As with most complaints there is more to the story. I have no interest in bad mouthing our client who obviously is upset because they are indeed dealing with a very frustrating situation. However, to "miss" something it had to be present at the time of the inspection. During the course of the...

inspection ALL plumbing was operated for about 10-15 minutes as well as the washing machine operated. The client was present for the home inspection and knows this to be true. Only after all of the plumbing was operated, did we inspect the basement (where the leak presented itself after the client moved in). No leakage was noted during the course of the inspection. As for returning calls, I was on vacation when the original complaint came in, I returned the call once I returned and went to look at his concerns the same day within 2 hours. that was a Friday, I returned his call on Monday, which was the following business day. While I appreciate that our client is having a very real problem presently, and I sympathize with him because I would find it extremely frustrating as well, it was not present at the time of the inspection. We can only comment on things that are present during the course of the inspection. We have no idea, and cannot be held liable for what has happened over the course of the past 2 1/2 months since the home was inspected.  We wish our client the best, and hope the rest the time in his home goes better. Sincerely,Neil C[redacted] Co-Owner Pillar to Post

Revdex.com of New Mexico (PLEASE LOOK AT MY HOUSE INSPECTD BY PillatoPost” on the internet.) [redacted]Re: Complaint ID [redacted]PillartoPost Inspection-Performed by Scott W[redacted] Mr. W[redacted]’s response to complaint ID [redacted] states, “his job as a home inspector is to educate the buyer of the true condition of the home.” He states, “The seller has picked out two items that were written up and calls the inspection inaccurate.”  He further state “there are not inaccuracies to the two items that she mentions.”   Argument: Mr. W[redacted] States in his report “(pg. 7, 5.1) A/C “NOT ABLE TO INSPECT.”  Therefore, if you state you were “UNABLE TO INSPECT”, then how can you give a prognosis that “you consider the A/C to be near the end of its life expectancy? That is like looking at a kidney, or any other body organ, not inspecting the kidney, then making the false assumption that it is considered to be near the end of its life expectancy.  So, does your false assumption mean that the organ, in this case the A/C, is at the end of its life expectancy? WITHOUT YOU INSPECTING THE AC, YOU MAKE A FALSE, AND INACCUARATE INSPECTION.  A licensed contractor and ANY OTHER INSPECTOR WOULD HAVE INSPECTED THE A/C BEFORE MAKING SUCH A FALSE ASSUMPTION. YOU ADMIT TO “NOT BEING ABLE TO INSPECT THE A/C.”I have a copy of “[redacted] “Inspection and repair of “Re-install existing Evap with new sleeve and flushing and leg kit, sealed with tar and Duct Sealer.”  [redacted] did not replace the A/C, because it was not needed.If MR. W[redacted]’s job is “educate buyer of the true condition of the home,” you cannot educate a buyer if you admit to “NOT ABLE TO INSPECT.” Inspection was incomplete, inaccurate, and false.The Garage Disposal was operable before, during, and immediately after Mr. W[redacted]’s inspection. Mr. W[redacted] states in his report “fix or repair garbage disposal. One cannot evaluate or repair if it  was fully operable at the time of your inspection.Garage Door is almost new and fully operable. You state “adjustment needed so garage door will close properly.” Another false assumption. Tub “drain slow—recommend having a certified plumber evaluate and repair.” Repair WHAT? The majority of your report is wordy, vague, and full of verbiage that makes it sound like the house was in disrepair. Tell me that did not MISLEAD THE BUYER?YOU CANNOT “NOT INSPECT” AND MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, AND FALSE DIAGNOSIS and truly educate a buyer. I am asking Mr.W[redacted] refund in full $346.13. [redacted] [redacted]As part of my complaint, and request for full refund of 346.13, please google my house “[redacted].  Eventually, another house inspection will be performed on this house, then we can further support the fact that Mr. W[redacted] made, and exaggerated, his  inaccurate, and incomplete assumptions. Resultant, it did affect the “no sale of my house.” He does not want to refund the monies. Then he is more liable for a larger monetary amount based on the negative monetary effect  based on his incomplete, inaccurate inspection.I will further pursue this complaint.   Thank you,