Receivable Funding Corp./Service Holding Corp.

Dear Sir;Upon review of the above referenced complaint the buyer has stated we suggested that the property is in perfect condition, this is a statement as we never ever would describe a property condition in this manner We simply state the current property conditions noted at the time of the inspection As to the company being non responsive an inspection was provided on November 2015, a page report was delivered to buyer report all conditions present at the time of the inspection A call was received on January 5th regarding the inspection and a return call was placed by the inspector and a message was left The buyer was re-contacted on the 14th by the office staff and the buyer stated that he had missed a call from us and had not heard back from us The inspector contacted the buyer on the same day to review their issues The inspector scheduled a re-visit of the property on Sunday the 17th of January The office reopened on the 19th due to the holiday and a call was placed to the realtor in an effort to obtain additional information and a message was left and no response was forthcoming The items in question were as follows, there are two HVAC systems and two Air Conditioning systems in the property The systems were denoted as Heating system and heating system 2, System number was noted to be in need as additional review by a HVAC contractor and repaired or replaced as needed System was not as serviceable and functioning The Air conditioning system were also noted as and System was also noted to be in need of additional review by a specialist System was noted as serviceable At the re-inspection both systems were is the same condition as noted during the original home inspection and it did not appear that any service technician had been contacted and provided any servicing At this time the buyer asked the about the airflow to the vents They flow was checked and found to be serviceable and functioning A servicing of the units and through cleaning may provide for an increase in the flow but this is a subjective review and based upon the inspector experience the ducts and flow appear to be serviceable The sump pump was also re-inspected, it preformed and provide the function it was intended to preform The unit was not running and when the float was lifted in turn on and started pumping the was no issues noted and it was found to be serviceable The buyer said that there was a leak at the kitchen sink During the time of the home inspection the property was occupied and the cabinet below the sink was full of personable belonging and prevented the inspector from fully accessing the bottom of the cabinet A water stain was noted at the time of the re-inspection however no structural damage was found and the was no leak found at either the original inspect or the re-inspection As to ant and rodent they are both expressly excluded and are not part of the home inspection A termite inspection was preformed for wood destroying organisms, and the property at both the original and re-inspection found no evidence of infestation I believe that the inspection was preformed in accordance with our service agreement and was not negligent in any way As purchasing an existing home can be a stressful and the purchaser expectations are that the home should be perfect this expectation is unrealistic No home is perfect, not even a new home, AmeriSpec understand and empathizes with [redacted] however the inspection and service meet or exceed the contract requirement set forth in the service agreement Walter C***

I'm writing in response to the above referenced complaint An inspection was preformed by Scott B [redacted] of AmeriSpec on October I will address the roof as it is the area of all other concerns Our inspection is based upon a Rating system which is located on page "Definition of terms" of the report Page speaks to the customer taking the time to analyze the following pages and review the complete report and it should be review carefully and that below is an index of the rating used in the reportOn page of item Roof covering has a rating of "Monitor" on page "Definition of Terms" reads: "Component Action Area: Indicates the need for repair or further evaluation of the items inspected" it also describes the type of material notes ponding conditions etc On page of item Attic: Repair/replace/monitor: "Component Action Area" indicates The need for repair or further evaluation of the item inspected" it also notes missing insulation Page of item same rating is given There are three area covering the roof section of the house and all three were rated as in need of further review Had we considered the roof to be acceptable and in good repair we would have given it a rating of "Serviceable"which we did not A further review and evaluation was recommended times Contractually on page of under the "Dispute Resolution And Remedy Limitation:" section states "You understand and agree that any Claim(s) or complaint arising out of or related to any alleged act or omission of AmeriSpec in Connection with the services shall be reported to us in writing, within ten (10) business days of discovery." Additionally "you agree to allow us a reasonable period of time to investigate your claim(s)or complaint(s) by, among other things ,re-inspecting before you or anyone acting on your behalf, repairs, replaces, alters or modifies the system or component that is the subject of your claim You understand and agree that any failure to timely notify us and allow adequate time to investigate as stated above shall constitute a complete bar and waiver of any and all claims you may have against us related to the alleged act or omission." Based upon the fact that we recommended three time in the roof section for an additional review and no notification of an alleged omission was given as well as all repairs being completed prior to notification Amerispec accepts no financial responsibility

We have reviewed [redacted]'s complaint along with her home inspection report. The inspector noted that the age of the roof was estimated to be between 17-20 and that the "Roof appears to be nearing end of useful life".  By calling the roof into action the inspector was suggesting that further...

evaluation of the roof by a licensed roofer be performed as stated in our agreement and definition of terms of located on page 3 of the report. Unfortunately we have to go by what is written in the report and not what may or may not have been verbally expressed on site.  As our agreement states " The inspector is a generalist and is not a licensed engineer or expert in any specific craft or trade. If the inspector recommends further action, including (but not limited to) consulting with a specialized expert(s), you must do so at your expense or otherwise assume all risks associated with failure to do so. This inspection is not technically exhaustive."  I am sorry if she felt that she was being disrespected by Mr. C[redacted] over the phone. I can assure you that was no way his intention (as I was present during the conversation and heard both sides of the conversation).I would like to extended an apology [redacted] and offer to refund the cost of the home inspection.

Dear Sir;Upon review of the above referenced complaint the buyer has stated we suggested that the property is in perfect condition, this is a false statement as we never ever would describe a property condition in this manner.  We simply state the current property conditions noted at the...

time of the inspection.  As to the company being non responsive an inspection was provided on November 3 2015, a 39 page report was delivered to buyer report all conditions present at the time of the inspection.   A call was received on January 5th regarding the inspection and a return call was placed by the inspector and a message was left.  The buyer was re-contacted on the 14th by the office staff and the buyer stated that he had missed a call from us and had not heard back from us.  The inspector contacted the buyer on the same day to review their issues.  The inspector scheduled a re-visit of the property on Sunday the 17th of January.  The office reopened on the 19th due to the holiday and a call was placed to the realtor in an effort to obtain additional information and a message was left and no response was forthcoming.   The items in question were as follows,  there are two HVAC systems and two Air Conditioning systems in the property.  The systems were denoted as Heating system  1 and heating system 2,.  System number 1 was noted to be in need as additional review by a HVAC contractor and repaired or replaced as needed.  System 2 was not as serviceable and functioning.  The Air conditioning system were also noted as 1 and 2..  System 1 was also noted to be in need of additional review by a specialist.   System 2 was noted as serviceable.  At the re-inspection both systems were is the same condition as noted during the original home inspection and it did not appear that any service technician had been contacted and provided any servicing.  At this time the buyer asked the about the airflow to the vents.  They flow was checked and found to be serviceable and functioning.  A servicing of the units and through cleaning may provide for an increase in the flow but this is a subjective review and based upon the inspector experience the ducts and flow appear to be serviceable.   The sump pump was also re-inspected, it preformed and provide the function it was intended to preform.   The unit was not running and when the float was lifted in turn on and started pumping.  the was no issues noted and it was found to be serviceable.  The buyer said that there was a leak at the kitchen sink.  During the time of the home inspection the property was occupied and the cabinet below the sink was full of personable belonging and prevented the inspector from fully accessing the bottom of the cabinet.  A water stain was noted at the time of the re-inspection however no structural damage was found and the was no leak found at either the original inspect or the re-inspection.  As to ant and rodent they are both expressly excluded and are not part of the home inspection.  A termite inspection was preformed for wood destroying organisms, and the property at both the original and re-inspection found no evidence of infestation.  I believe that the inspection was preformed in accordance with our service agreement and was not negligent in any way.  As purchasing an existing home  can be a stressful and the purchaser expectations are that the home should be perfect this expectation is unrealistic.  No home is perfect, not even a new home,  AmeriSpec understand and empathizes with [redacted] however the inspection and service meet or exceed the contract requirement set forth in the service agreement.  Walter C[redacted]

The customer has been sent a release and we have not received a response from the customer.  Although Amerispec did advise the customer that here roof was in need of replacement we have gone above a beyond to satisfy this buyer.  I refund is not warranted as the roof is in need of replacement as we stated.  We in the interest of good customer relations have agreed to refund her fee.  We do require a release and we will forward another in the hopes of putting this to bed.  It is extremely difficult to meet the expectations of the general public in providing home inspections as they believe that the inspector should find everything possibly wrong with the home.  However this is not the reality of what a home inspection is.  There are limitations that a inspector must endure time restraints not accessible etc.  We certainly want to help the customer who we neglected to find an item that we should have however in cases like these where we have done our job and we did advise the customer that the roof was not ok and in need of replacement its hard to have to pay them for their lack of attention to the report and the finding of the inspector.  Its bad enough when you miss it to have to pay for it but when you didn't miss it and still have to pay really stinks and is unfair.  Just because a customer can call upon all these advocates that pressure the company seems unjust and unfair.  I hope she enjoys the money and uses it well because if she can live with it I can live without it.    Walter C[redacted]PresidentAmeriSpec Inspection Services

So, I wrote a formal complaint on here and deemed as "resolved" over a month ago. The owner of the company said they would refund me what I had paid for their "service" -- I have called twice now, no one has called me back and no refund has been issued. class act. original complaint below... ___ I had an inspection preformed the end of May. In this inspection a number of issues were not discovered even though they should have been easily detectable. The specific issue that I am outraged about is the roof. In the report it states "Roof appears to be nearing end of useful life." it's old, I get it, I was told by the inspector it has a good 5-7 years left. What was NOT in the report was that the roof is improperly installed on three separate areas on the house where the shingles do not hang over the drip edge which has been causing dry rot from water getting underneath. When speaking with the owner of the company, not only was he extremely disrespectful to me due to being a woman saying at one point "listen, girl!" he continued to attempt to belittle me and not listen to anything I had to say and gave vague answers to questions. I have spoken to contractors as well as roofers and all have confirmed that this is something that should have definitely been brought to my attention. Nearing the end of useful life and not being properly installed or covered are two totally different things. Also, when asking hypothetically if shingles had been missing in the center of the roof exposing the plywood, would that have been noted and he stated that depended on the inspector. It's the same scenario but on a different area on the roof and it should have 100% been noted.

I'm writing in response to the above referenced complaint.  An inspection was preformed by Scott B[redacted] of AmeriSpec on October 1 2015.  I will address the roof as it is the area of all other concerns.  Our inspection is based upon a Rating system which is located on page 4...

"Definition of terms"  of the report.  Page 4 speaks to the customer taking the time to analyze the following pages and review the complete report and it should be review carefully and that below is an index of the rating used in the report. On page 12 of 30 item 1402 Roof covering has a rating of "Monitor"  on page 4 "Definition of Terms"  reads: "Component Action Area: Indicates the need for repair or further evaluation of the items inspected" it also  describes the type of material notes ponding conditions etc.   On page 13 of 30 item 1404  Attic:  Repair/replace/monitor:  "Component Action Area"  indicates The need for repair or further evaluation of the item inspected"  it also notes missing insulation.  Page 14 of 30 item 1405 same  rating is given.  There are three area covering the roof section of the house and all three were rated as in need of further review.  Had we considered the roof to be acceptable and in good repair we would have given it a rating of "Serviceable". which we did not.  A further review and evaluation was recommended 3 times.  Contractually on page 2 of 2  under the "Dispute Resolution And Remedy Limitation:"  section  states  "You understand and agree that any Claim(s) or complaint arising out of or related to any alleged act or omission of AmeriSpec in Connection with the services shall be reported to us in writing, within ten (10) business days of discovery."  Additionally "you agree to allow us a reasonable period of time to investigate your claim(s)or complaint(s) by, among other things ,re-inspecting before you or anyone acting on your behalf, repairs, replaces, alters or modifies the system or component that is the subject of your claim.  You understand and agree that any failure to timely notify us and allow adequate time to investigate as stated above shall constitute a complete bar and waiver of any and all claims you may have against us related to the alleged act or omission."  Based upon the fact that we recommended three time in the roof section for an additional review and no notification of an alleged omission was given as well as all repairs being completed prior to notification Amerispec accepts no financial responsibility.