Schaefer Inspection Service, Inc.

*** Inspection Service
This is our second response to Mr***’s complaint: Mr*** has
accused us of misrepresenting the facts, and we believe he is trying to get us to pay for his new roof, where his roof is older but functioningThe
issue rests on whether or not our report provided him with information that
would have prevented further problems for him, which it doesOur inspection report
is compartmentalizedA view of the roof from the exterior showed that the roof
was old enough (years, original roof) to be monitored. We define why monitoring is recommended: ‘Monitoring
will typically be recommended if the system or component is potentially near
end of service life or functioning is marginal’
There was evidence of a possible water issue noted on the
interior of the house on the first floor ceiling. The inspection was not done during the rain
so we could not tell if this was an issue that was current or whether it had
been repaired. Our report noted and
recommended how to be more certain:
While it is possible that the cause has been repaired and
stains left; this cannot be guaranteed.
Current weather conditions may not produce actual conditions that caused
these stains. If available, sellers can
be questioned to obtain history; however, only further evaluation or documented
proof of repair by a qualified contractor can more fully determine if the cause
of the stain has been rectified. If
repairs have been adequately represented the staining should be painted over
with a stain-killing paint and then monitored
Mr*** chose to accept from the seller that corrections had
been made, without obtaining documented proof, or getting further evaluation as
our report suggests. He either ignored
the comments, or did not carefully read his inspection reportThis is one
reason why we always prefer the client to be present and accompany the inspector
while he is inspecting, and then carefully read the written report that
follows, and attend to the recommendations

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Once again, the overall condition of the roof was missed by the inspector. No where in the roofing section does it suggest I contact a roofing contractor for further evaluation. If the inspection company thinks I should have consulted a roofing contractor based on other areas of the report that have nothing to do with the roof, that is very concerning to me and should be a red flag to future customers. In their response of 10/28/15, the inspection company gives a definition of "monitor" from another area of the report. Under the roofing section it says: Condition:No immediate action beyond maintenance. Monitor: The roof is past mid-life and approaching within several years of the typical manufacturer's represented lifeexpectancy for this type of roofing materialMonitoring is recommended If the inspection company thinks I should use their other definition of monitoring instead of the one that they highlight in green in the roofing section, I have even further concerns. This is very deceiving and misleading to consumers. Yes, I feel the inspection company should be responsible for paying a portion of the new roof. I have clearly outlined my position in previous letters and do not need to restate the entire complaint again. I have substantial documentation to back up my case. I feel like I am being given the runaround. If the inspection company is not willing to pay for a portion of the roof, I would like the Revdex.com to close my complaint so I can file my court case
Sincerely,
*** ***

Hello ***,Sorry for the delay in responding This complaint arrived while we were away for a weekWhen we came back there were so many things to attend to and I worked to make sure it was a thorough response.Thank you,*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response
because: The response from *** Inspection is filled with too many inaccuracies to even list here. But, I will highlight a few. First, *** keeps talking about the family room ceiling and that we accepted the previous homeowner's explanation of ice damage. However, the leak we noticed had nothing to do with the family room. The family room WAS NOT leaking, the living room WAS leaking. Next, *** seems to think that we should not have had the leak patched. Instead, should we have continued to have rain come into our living room? The bucket we placed beneath the leak could only hold so much water. We could not risk further damage to our home by ignoring water coming into the room. Time was of the essence.*** also talks about potential porous chimney bricks and attic plywood staining. The previous homeowner's had already corrected the issue. It has nothing to do with this issue and we never claimed it did.Further, *** says we should have followed up with contractors to explore the areas of attic and family room staining. Again, these areas ARE NOT leaking and are not the issue. They were issues that had been previously repaired.Also, *** claims I said on many occasions that I knew the roof was at the end of its life and would have to be replaced within years. This is a flat out lie. I never knew it was at the end of its life until we had the leak and several roofers told me it was at the end of its life: brittle shingles, missing shingles, multiple patch jobs, moss, staining, etc. What I told *** was that I expected to get another 5-years out of the roof. If I had known it was at the end of its life, I certainly would have negotiated the home sale differently or maybe not even bought the house at all. In fact, Schafer's report says it is within "several" years of the manufacture's typical life expectancy. To my knowledge, "several" doesn't mean 2.As I have said before, the leak in the living room was what alerted us to a bigger problem - the roof needing to be replaced. If the issue was just confined to fixing a leak, we would have had it fixed and been done with it As I have also said, the "experts" *** brought in on separate occasions have conflicting stories. Anatole C*** told us one thing when he was at our home and then wrote up something completely different. Bill W*** told us one thing and then after being told not to saying anything else by *** ***, changed his story. It also seems strange that the other roofer *** brought to look at the roof wrote up a response in our favor, but that is conveniently left out of ***'s response. As I have also said, I have the inspection report, from another CT inspection company that was done a month prior to the *** inspection. This report, provided to us by other potential buyers, indicates all the roof issues missed in our report from ***. In fact, it says to anticipate needing to replace the roof It seems very strange that with all the issues picked up by the other inspection report and the several roofers we had look at it, that our report from *** only says "Monitor: The roof is past mid-life and approaching within several years of the typical manufacturer's represented life expectancy for this type of roofing material." No where in the "Roof" section does it say to follow up with another contractor. *** Inspection clearly missed the overall condition of my roof. It's a shame that they just can't admit when a mistake was made and make restitutionHopefully this will serve as a lesson to other consumers looking to hire a home inspection company. On principle, we will be pursuing this in small claims court unless *** Inspection reaches out to us.
Sincerely,
*** ***