Realty Check Inspection Svc

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:MrD [redacted] has repeatedly tried to place all responsibility upon myself, the sole purchaser of the home in [redacted] Shores, Washington and my fiance at the time [redacted] who is not an owner of this homeI am merely a consumer forced to use inspection services in order to acquire a home loanBut, he has stated over and over again that I should have inspected the home myself and that I should have followed up on his notes with my own inspections and should have known how to assess a used home, but at no time does he every mention that his lack of clear communications regarding his inability as merely a generalist inspector would not be adequate in the true understanding of any system of the home, including the roof, played any part in the fact that by hiring him both my realtor and myself were lead to believe that the older home had a roof that only needed a minor repairFurther, D [redacted] has accused me of letting the roof leak from December to March prior to notifying himIn fact I had no knowledge nor had I seen any evidence of the leak until I wrote the letter explaining there was a problem with the leak and asking for all parties involved in the transaction (both the selling and purchasing realtor and as well the seller with the letter to MrD***) for input on how to best and fairly remedy the discovery that the roof had to be replacedIn no way did I ever write a letter demanding that MrD [redacted] pay for a new roof and in fact the trail of emails and letters proves that I offered that myself, the seller and D [redacted] split the cost by approximately 1/each after speaking to the seller who revealed that had our inspector reported the real condition of the roof, his insurance policy would have replaced it free and clear, prior to the saleThe first and only time I suggested D [redacted] should be responsible for the total cost plus reimbursement of his $fee was via my complaint through the Revdex.com.It is just in no way true that I, a consumer, a home buyer, a non-expert as a generalist home inspector or home buyer, was negligent in any way in working with my realtor to understand the report and in interpreting itTo say that I have failed in every way to abide by the inspection report is completely falseI did contact D [redacted] immediately upon discovering that the roof was leaking within days of noting the leak and he did have full access to inspect the damages reported in the home, in addition to my photograph of the water damage that I supplied to him via emailNo request was made by D [redacted] to enter my home to inspect the damagesI was only met with defensive emails insulting me for not knowing better and arranging follow up conversations after he noted a repair needed to be made on the f*t part of the roof over the garage I stand by my assessment of D [redacted] as doing a poor inspection job and being vague and inadequate in his communications of any issues with the house because he has proven over and over again that he has reacted defensively and continually shown he is much more concerned with his rights to protect himself than to participate in providing a fair and equitable settlement for making a mistake that cost me thousands of dollars to fixSincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
D[redacted] only has responded defending his lack of expert service I contracted him for by stating his protection to do a poor job for me is because the weather was bad that day and the SOP protects him as a generalist. He has still not addressed core complaints.
Just today we have had GT Roofing from Centralia, WA remove the old roof to show that many plywood pieces have large holes, which would have been visible to Peter D[redacted] from the inside of my crawl space. Further solidifying my believe that he is more of a charlatan who posed as someone with expertise in inspecting homes, rather than a generalist with pore verbal and written skills in delivering direct and accurately urgent information about the state of the roof in question during the purchasing process.
D[redacted] has stated "On the date of the inspection, the weather on the [redacted] coast was torrential rain - sustained winds of 20-40mph with gusts up to 50+mph. At the time it was deemed not safe to walk the two story home for my own safety allowed by the SOP- Which automatically disclaims visual conditions of the roof surface conditions." While D[redacted] felt obligated to use the shield of SOP to protect himself, he did not do the proper duty of a paid inspector and recommend that due to the fact he had seen evidence of prior water penetration into the roof that when there were better weather conditions, a roofing expert should properly inspect the roof. Further, he should have admitted that while he recommended a repair be done to the roof, that he was doing so not as a roofing expert and that the entire roof should have been inspected by an expert and not a generalist. This is costing me well over $7100 now that I have 10+ pieces of visually compromised plywood to replace at $45-50 per sheet. At no time has he offered any retribution for the poor job he has done, per my requests.
Given the circumstances and based on the facts at hand, it is my belief that Mr. D[redacted] either understood the extent of the damages to the roof upon entering the crawl space and felt protected by SOP enough to not bother alerting me to the real condition, or was himself incompetent, lacks common sense and lacks expertise in being an inspection generalist. I believe this because it was very, very obvious to me today, not a roofing expert, nor an inspection generalist expert, when seeing the size of the holes in the plywood that the roof was no longer viable and had not been viable for a very long time.
Sincerely,[redacted]

To date, my correspondence with [redacted] through emails and the Revdex.com involving this matter have been professional and dignified on my end. Please have itduly noted that since she chooses to belittle the process by resorting to derogatory insults I will no longer reply to any further dispute inquiries about thiscomplaint through the Revdex.com or any other channel other than a WA State Court of Law. This service is under contractual obligations; that she and [redacted] havebroken and I urge them to review again, including the full inspection report.
-This dispute is simple. [redacted] is upset that she did not do her own due diligence in purchasing a used home -one with an original roof cover whom wasalso alerted to many issues of concern including a leaking roof. Now after taking possession of it, allowing it to continually leak from December thru Marchand finally learning of the cost of replacement, is trying to backtrack and find a way for everyone else to pay for it.
-In the bargained for inspection report I called out various items of concern along with exterior water penetration issues to include a leaking roof and did theabsolute best of my contractual duty as a home inspector as outlined in the Washington State Home Inspector SOP given the severe weather conditions atthe time. We are not required to put our lives in jeopardy to complete any portion(s) of the inspection process, [redacted] obviously cares less about that andwould rather belittle this protection as evident in her recent response- but I say to her YES, it is my ''shield of protection", thank you very much!!
- For $400.00 dollars a home inspector is not expected nor required to take a house apart and put it back together again for a client, the process is notdesigned to be exhaustive in any manner. We are hired to simply give a non bias review and note issues that were visually apparent at the time of inspectionthat should be further evaluated by trade professionals for cause and repair as stated in the Inspection Agreement Contract and Report respectfully. Sherelentlessly claims I did not sufficiently make her aware of her requirements to have secondary professional evaluations on items of concern, even though Ihave since highlighted sections of the inspection report for her review to contradict her assertion. It is my complete conviction that she simply did not readthe inspection report end to end but relied on others to make her purchasing decision(s). She obviously only accepted any repairs requested to be done atface value, without reviewing the scope of such repairs with the professionals hired. She also did not request final review with me or any other repair personother than maybe obtaining work receipts and is now experiencing the ramifications of not being fully involved in her purchase decision. A home inspectionis not intended to be a warranty, insurance policy or a buyer's protection policy.
- [redacted] also states that I failed at my "contracted" duty to do a thorough job. Funny, I am actually the only one who HAS abided by our inspectionagreement contract. I also have close to 900 digital pictures of the homes: exterior, interior, garage, attics and crawl space to INCLUDE thermal imaging scanpictures of the interior rooms' walls and ceilings, taken at the date & time of inspection. These are documented proof of my thoroughness and actualconditions at the time of inspection. I would assume neither [redacted] nor [redacted] have any pictures of the home or attic space condition at the time ofinspection. Actually I know they don't because [redacted] left half way through the inspection process and prior to me inspecting the attics & crawls, and [redacted]wasn't even present for any of it. As she stated, the roof had to be torn off to see actual plywood damage but still claims "this must have been visible in theattic space/" I'm actually the only one who has any visual proof of the attic space condition on the date and time of inspection! Hidden or latent damageunder roof covering is obviously disclaimed. And why would I spend three hours and produce an inspection report with 30 items of concern only to leave outone? And to top it off, .. INFER I did it on purpose?? With 11+ years experience and 4,000+ full home inspections performed for satisfied clients- thisaccusation infuriates me the most and shows she is merely grasping at anything to make her case seem credible.
- [redacted] has failed on all accounts to abide by any the inspection agreement contract clauses and I will be happy to prove each one in a Court of Law toinclude for example.
Paragraph 5 states:5 NOTICE REQUIREMENT: In the event of a disputable condition, CLIENT agrees to immediately contact US first and supply INSPECI'OR with thefollowing: (a) Written notification of adverse condition(s) within seven days of discovery, and (b) Complete and fuU access to the premises for affirmation,documentation and review of disputed condition prior to destructive repair or alterations of condition(s) in question. Failure to comply with the above conditions\vill release INSPECTOR and its agents from any and all obligations or liability of any kind. PLEASE NOTE: No lee;al action or proceedine; of any kind.including those so undine; in tort or contrast. can be commenced ae;ainst the INSPECTOR more than SIXTY DAYS (60) after the date of the subjectinspection. Time is expressly of the essence herein.
-The first and only correspondence I ever received from [redacted] was a certified letter (March 2016) demanding money for a new roof replacement, but shewants to call me a charlatan? Again, the client's complaint has no defendable merit and should not be posted publicly. Please also note, I will not stand forthem making any unfounded public claims or reviews, to include libel remarks against me or my company. I will only be willing to resolve this matter byproving their culpable negligence in a Washington State Court of Law from here on out.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Mr. D[redacted] has repeatedly tried to place all responsibility upon myself, the sole purchaser of the home in [redacted] Shores, Washington and my fiance at the time [redacted] who is not an owner of this home. I am merely a consumer forced to use inspection services in order to acquire a home loan. But, he has stated over and over again that I should have inspected the home myself and that I should have followed up on his notes with my own inspections and should have known how to assess a used home,  but at no time does he every mention that his lack of clear communications regarding his inability as merely a generalist inspector would not be adequate in the true understanding of any system of the home, including the roof, played any part in the fact that by hiring him both my realtor and myself were lead to believe that the older home had a roof that only needed a minor repair. Further, D[redacted] has accused me of letting the roof leak from December to March prior to notifying him. In fact I had no knowledge nor had I seen any evidence of the leak until I wrote the letter explaining there was a problem with the leak and asking for all parties involved in the transaction (both the selling and purchasing realtor and as well the seller with the letter to Mr. D[redacted]) for input on how to best and fairly remedy the discovery that the roof had to be replaced. In no way did I ever write a letter demanding that Mr. D[redacted] pay for a new roof and in fact the trail of emails and letters proves that I offered that myself, the seller and D[redacted] split the cost by approximately 1/3 each after speaking to the seller who revealed that had our inspector reported the real condition of the roof, his insurance policy would have replaced it free and clear, prior to the sale. The first and only time I suggested D[redacted] should be responsible for the total cost plus reimbursement of his $400 fee was via my complaint through the Revdex.com.It is just in no way true that I, a consumer, a home buyer, a non-expert as a generalist home inspector or home buyer, was negligent in any way in working with my realtor to understand the report and in interpreting it. To say that I have failed in every way to abide by the inspection report is completely false. I did contact D[redacted] immediately upon discovering that the roof was leaking within 7 days of noting the leak and he did have full access to inspect the damages reported in the home, in addition to my photograph of the water damage that I supplied to him via email. No request was made by D[redacted] to enter my home to inspect the damages. I was only met with defensive emails insulting me for not knowing better and arranging follow up conversations after he noted a repair needed to be made on the f[redacted]t part of the roof over the garage.  I stand by my assessment of D[redacted] as doing a poor inspection job and being vague and inadequate in his communications of any issues with the house because he has proven over and over again that he has reacted defensively and continually shown he is much more concerned with his rights to protect himself than to participate in providing a fair and equitable settlement for making a mistake that cost me thousands of dollars to fix. Sincerely,[redacted]

In response to complaint ID# [redacted]
-A home inspection is a generalist, visual, non invasive, non exhaustive review of a home, promulgated by a set ofStandards Of Practice (SOP) enacted by the Washington State Home Inspection Law. These SOP detail certainexceptions, limitations, and allowable...

exclusions.
-On November 12, 2015 I performed a home inspection for [redacted] & [redacted]- Co Buyers andproduced a comprehensive report detailing 30 items of concern, 5 of which were water penetration concerns toinclude evidence of a leaking roof as noted in the attic space.
- On the date of the inspection, the weather on the [redacted] coast was torrential rain - sustained winds of 20-40mphwith gusts up to 50+mph. At the time it was deemed not safe to walk the two story home for my own safetyallowedby the SOP- Which automatically disclaims visual conditions of the roof surface conditions.
- This March 2016, The 1st and only complaint communication I received from the clients about anything was acertified letter demanding monetary compensation for a NEW roof, claiming the roof had developed more leakingissues between January and March which a roofing company finally reviewed and determined (four months later)that the roof was warranted for replacement.
- It is important to note, that the time period between the inspection date and the demand letter, WA Stateexperienced the wettest and stormiest winters on record. It goes without saying that these other storms are morethan likely associated to other wind related damage causing these sequential leaking issues the clients haveexperienced after taking legal possession of the home. Per SOP, home inspectors ore not required to determineremaining life expectancy of roof covers, or predict future damage, failure or leaking conditions.
-The cl ients ascertain I did not let them know the roof may be compromised or warn them to have issuesprofessionally evaluated. I have previously highlighted for them (emailed) two area in the inspection report tocontradict their assertion - and equally obvious, the current leaking condition FOUND AND REPORTED on at thetime of inspection would put any reasonable person on notice that the roof cover is in fact currentlycompromised.-Buyers have a duty to investigate all potential issues pointed out in the inspection report to their ownsatisfaction. - upheld in the post by many WA State Court Cases.
- Lastly, any and all economic loss is allocated to the buyer under the sa le contingency and inspection agreementcontracts. The client's complaint has no defendable merit and should not be posted publicly.
Sincerely,Peter D[redacted]-