Dear Dispute Resolution Team,
The requested inspection reports and high-res color photos
are attached
In Stuccospec’s Report, please note:
1.
Page 6, Fand Brows of the table: They claim the left and right sides of beam are “Firm”
They claimed there’s no damageThat's absolutely wrong as will be explained
2.
Page 5, 3rd row of the table: Flat
Surfaces were coated with elastomeric and that’s a favorable detail according to them, meaning
without metal caps things are working fine
Stuccospec’s report was not making any sense because the signs
of failure (very long and wide cracks on supposedly repaired stucco walls) were
all over the place and growing at an alarming rateBy the way, Stuccospec’s report is not showing
all cracks properly (we have them documented in high-res)Anyways, weeks
later, we hired another inspection firm, Stucco Check, to figure out what’s
really going on hereStucco Check identified all repair issues/damagesThey
said the work done by the contractor not only fixed original issues but
actually made them worseThey stated the beam and wood in repaired areas is
not “Firm,” it’s damagedPlease see Page 5, Page 7, and Item on Page of
Stucco Check’s Report that illustrates all damagesNote that the terms “Soft” and
“No Substrate” and sometimes “Semi Soft” (in their report referring to the
Substrate Condition) means there’s damage
After Stucco Check’s inspection, weeks later, we hired a
second contractorThey removed the first contractor’s stuccoWe all witnessed
firsthand the beam was not “Firm” as Stuccospec had claimed; it was rotted
Please see the attached Photo #of badly damaged beamBut that’s not allWood in other
areas the first contractor had repaired was rotted tooPlease see the attached
Photo #of damaged woodStuccospec was absolutely wrong and Stucco Check was right
Thanks and Regards
Sent: Friday, September 09, 4:PM Subject: Re: Revdex.com Complaint ID *** ***, This is in response to the Revdex.com complaint that you filedLook at elevation #(detail picture) which shows that there are no visible weep holes Since you contacted
the Revdex.com we will forward to the Revdex.com a copy of the report and all of your email correspondance Again, we have never suggested to seal over weep holes in our years of business Our report does not suggest to seal over weep holes Greg Carter, your contractor absolutely knows to not seal over weep holes It is not even evident from your email that weep holes are present One of your emails stated that the original installer of the windows, may have sealed over weep holes Weep holes are not visible on your home Our report clearly states that there are no visible weep holes Beth Harbison StuccoSpec / Safe Aire Technology 936-441-0016 office *** cell [email protected][email protected] fx 281-966-www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
Deae Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint This complaint was originally sent to the business by Revdex.com on 12/8/for their responseStuccospec had approximately days to provide a response in writing to Revdex.comThey failed to provide a response in the specified time periodMultiple (to the best of my knowledge, 4) follnotices had to be sent by Revdex.com to the business as reminders requesting a responseThe last one was sent on 1/3/Today, 1/11/2017, after over days, the business finally decided to actually write few words and postpone the process to 1/20/That is over days to provide some kind of a responseThis is unacceptableTo suggest that they're "investigating it now" is again simply an attempt to stall the processI demand immediate act on Stuccospec's behalf and would urge the Revdex.com step in to make this happenMore than a fair amount of time to respond was already given to the business to respondIn return, they did notThis simply means the business decided to keep ignoring Revdex.com's notices multiple timesThanks and Regards
Regards,
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint Subject: Re: Window Problem From: *** CC: [email protected] Date: Fri, Sep 16:52:-To: [email protected] would be happy to show you the weep holes which are misidentified in the photo in your report and demonstrate how they work. Now that they are uncovered, when I pour water into them on the inside of the window sill it flows through the weep holes to the outside of the house as it should Seeing is believingI invite you to witness this for yourself.Your inspector made an error on my home inspection and also on several inspections of my neighbors' homes built at the same time.My original note to you was written in good faith to help to prevent that your inspectors make similar errors in the futureAt a minimum I was expecting an apology. Your continual denial of the problem has really disappointed me which is why I decided to write to the Revdex.com.Speaking of concerns, I have read online about a customer who was not happy that Gregg M*** never returned their phone calls or text messagesThis also happened to me as you may recall. I did not mention this to the Revdex.com*** Sent from my ***
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 4:54 PMTo: drteamSubject: Re: Complaint ID #[redacted] I will briefly layout what we did for [redacted].04/17/2017 --Original "Moisture Assessment Report" --We found excessive moisture intrusion and some water damage behind the stucco and provided a report on how to minimize future moisture intrusion. [redacted] DID NOT follow our advice as submitted in the report. Metal caps on flat walls were not installed in 04/2014 and resulted in more water intrusion.04/03/2015 --"VISUAL AND LIMITED MOISTURE REPORT" --This report was very limited to only three moisture sites. This is what [redacted] wanted us to do. He did not want a full moisture assessment report. During this visit again dated 04/03/2015 we cleary stated that there was continued water intrusion. This is verified with high moisture readings and large cracks. We clearly noted during this visit that [redacted] did not install the metal caps on flat walls as requested a year earlier. Furthermore , water damaged building materials can occur within the first year of a house being built. Approximately 17 months later after our original inspection [redacted] decided to do repairs and blame the water intrusion on StuccoSpec. This is unacceptable!!!! This guy has posted lots of negative crap about our company online (ie: Yelp, Angie's list etc). We are a very reputable company with extremely loyal clients in the real estate community. I will reframe from using all of the ugly language and name calling that he has said about our company. In closing , we found and identified the water intrusion on this house; we did not cause the water intrusion!!! [redacted] decided not to take the advise on our original report.All of our reports including his have this disclaimer below:This report only reports on the condition of the structure at the specific locations indicated. Locations were determined by the inspector according to the probable areas of possible moisture intrusion and in accordance with Industry Standards. The suggestions for corrections to prevent moisture intrusion and mold growth are given in accordance with the best judgment and experience that have been determined from previous inspections, repairs, and knowledge gained from our experience and other knowledgeable persons in the industry. No judgment is intended or given for any areas not reported on.Kevin and Beth [redacted]Beth [redacted]StuccoSpec / Safe Aire Technology936-441-0016 office832-818-3833 [email protected]@gmail.comfx 281-966-1780www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:10 AMSubject: Re: Houston Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] HI We have recieved your complaint from customer [redacted] and we will respond by 01/20/2017 or sooner. Investigating it now. Thanks Beth [redacted] StuccoSpec / Safe Aire...
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Revdex.com of Houston and South Texas- Complaint regarding Your Business #[redacted] This will be my 1st response to your complaint, [redacted]. Why did you not take our advice that was provided in our first report? Why did you not install metal caps? You purchased a home with multiple balconies that are open to the rainy houston weather. We did a subsequent report and again recommended metal caps. [redacted], I am a waterproofing consultant not a contractor. I did not repair your house. As I am reviewing the multiple emails from you I realize that you have been one of the most difficult clients in recent memory. I have been in business for 20 years and cannot recall a client that has posted negative reviews about my company and those who have worked for me. Stuccospec , clearly provided you with a clear and concise report detailing water intrusion issues. You decided not to follow our waterproofing guidelines. If I need to I will send the Revdex.com all of the emails from you and I and the contractor. I noticed one email from the contractor to you stating that if you continue to harass him he was going to file a law suit against you! I suggest that you move on with your life and quit contacting me / Let it go! Beth [redacted] StuccoSpec / Safe Aire Technology 936-441-0016 office 832-818-3833 cell [email protected][email protected] fx 281-966-1780 www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
Dear Revdex.com:
We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve our complaint. It is unprofessional that Stuccospec decided to provide a new response after their last one-line response of: “I deny this claim and will not respond.” as seen on 2/26/2017. We do not tolerate such games.Stuccospec’s new response essentially consists of the same ignorant comments made on 1/18/2017. We addressed them in detail on 1/20/2017. Then the Revdex.com gave Stuccospec 10 days to provide a response back but Stuccospec failed to provide any response. This complaint should have been closed as unresolved back then but the Revdex.com gave Stuccospec yet another chance and sent them the inspection report by Stucco Check as a proof for their horrible misconduct. They were given another 20 days to respond and instead of providing a logical and reasonable explanation, their response was: “I deny this claim and will not respond.” What made Stuccospec provide such a response now? We are disgusted by their actions.This is our 6th letter to address their sloppy comments. It is evident that they are not paying any attention to what we state in the original complaint and the four subsequent detailed letters as they keep repeating the same ignorant comments. They must stop, go back and read all previous letters. Again, instead of addressing the main issues outlined in the original complaint letter, they are generating new distractions, keep blaming the customer and focusing on irrelevant matters. That is a typical escape strategy of a business that provides a horrible service and does not hold themselves accountable when confronted. They keep ignoring and do not address the issues properly let alone a simple apology for all the hassle/mental stress/pain their horrible service has put us through. We will address their irrelevant and ignorant comments in six paragraphs below:(1) FIRST REPORT: The focus of this complaint is Stuccospec’s Second Report (done post-repairs), not their First Report (done pre-repairs). Stuccospec is blaming us for their horrible Second Report stating we decided not to follow their waterproofing guidelines from the First Report. Absolutely wrong. Everything from their First Report was communicated to the stucco contractor THEY REFERRED who did the first round of repairs just few weeks after their First Report. Tremendous amount of time was consumed, ~60 pages of info were exchanged and ~$14,000 was spent to make sure the contractor they referred gets repairs done right. The issues in this complaint have nothing to do with not taking their advice yet they ignorantly state: approximately 17 months later after their original inspection [i.e. First Report] we decided to do repairs. Absolutely wrong; repairs were done few weeks after their First Report. This level of inconsistency, sloppiness and ignorance is “unacceptable!!!!”.(2) WATER INTRUSION: No one blamed them for water intrusion. The #1 issue with Stuccospec is that they inspected the repairs and reported inaccurate info in their Second Report. On its Page 6, in F4 and B4 rows of the table, they claim the left and right sides of beam are: “Firm” [meaning not damaged]. In addition, on the inspection day, in a recorded voice conversation, their inspector states: there’s no damage anywhere where in realty there was damage right in areas he had probed as will be explained later. The worst part is that they communicated this wrong/misrepresented info to the contractor and that led to him denying the existence of damages and not honoring the workmanship warranty. Also their negligence and misrepresentation has caused us to suffer a significant economic harm of +$13,000. We had to re-do the repairs instead of being able to utilize the warranty on the original repairs. Clear?(3) METAL CAPS: They still do not address the beam damage misrepresentation in their Second Report as witnessed only weeks after their inspection, something they claim as “Firm” [meaning not damaged]. Instead, they focus on caps. To their surprise, metal caps were not the source of damage here but since they ignorantly insist on it: (3A) We sent their First Report to the contractor they referred. He did not agree with the caps solution idea and said they will deter from the architectural beauty and replaced it with “a cementitious base coat…and multiple coatings of elastomeric wall primer” and stated this provides “proper waterproofing” and applied them; emails documented. (3B) In the recorded voice conversation, their inspector further states: “the coatings are working perfectly and there’s no damage” (3C) On Page 5, 3rd row of the table of their Second Report, Stuccospec states: “Flat surfaces have been coated with elastomeric coating. This is a favorable detail” [meaning without metal caps things are working fine]. (3D) During the re-doing of repairs, while removing the contractor’s stucco, we also saw firsthand the major source of damage was not the metal caps; it was something they had failed to identify.(4) “HE DID NOT WANT A FULL MOISTURE ASSESSMENT REPORT”: That is a shameless lie on the part of Stuccospec as will be explained. The emails requesting a detailed job that they ignored are documented. A bit of history, we sent Stuccospec’s Second Report to the contractor to utilize the warranty, his response: “all I see is few cracks...report is showing Firm substrate [referring to the beam; meaning no damage]…I will not fix anything under warranty.” An unreasonable response powered by Stuccospec’s horrible Second Report. Despite repeated requests to do proper documentation, their Second Report is not showing all cracks properly (we have them documented in high resolution). Reporting that the beam is “Firm” on both sides gave the contractor an excuse to deny damages and not honor the workmanship warranty. Stuccospec was copied on all communications, no comment from them. Their lousy inspection was not making any sense because signs of repair failure were all over the place and growing. The repairs were falling apart. Situations like this are every homeowner’s nightmare. So we asked their inspector, [redacted], some follow-up technical questions on his report; he never responded. Online reviews state that he does it to other homeowners too. That is horrible and very unprofessional. In the recorded voice conversation, on the inspection day, he states: “I’m here to help you today and a year from now.” Why did he choose to disappear after delivering his lousy report? What gives him the right to take people’s hard-earned money and not respond to their questions regarding his lousy inspection? [redacted] ignored us, so we brought several experts to help figure out what is going on. They all confirmed repair issues and said: “these are warranty calls; we cannot partially repair them because it would be touching someone else’s work and consequently difficult to warranty it.” Hence we asked Stuccospec: we would like to hire you in consulting mode, please come back and do a detailed inspection this time i.e. spend more time and pin-point all damages. Their final response was: “we do not like to get involved because the contractor is also a colleague of us.” What kind of inspector says that? An inspector hired by homeowners is supposed to do their job right or line up with contractors!? They left us in the dark with the issues/damages yet they now ignorantly claim that we did not want a full report. Again, we are disgusted by their actions.(5) THEIR DISCLAIMER: They think they can protect themselves with such nonsense. We are smarter than that. Only few weeks after Stuccospec’s Second Report we hired another inspection company, Stucco Check, to figure out what is really going on. They re-inspected the same areas Stuccospec had inspected. Stucco Check did the job right, identified all repair issues/damages, and provided a great customer service. They said: the work done by the contractor not only fixed original issues but actually made them worse. They stated the beam and wood in repaired areas are not “Firm” and are damaged. Please see Page 5, Page 7, and Item 1 on Page 12 of Stucco Check’s report that illustrates damages. Note the terms “Soft” and “No Substrate” and sometimes “Semi Soft” in their report that refer to the substrate condition; these terms mean there is damage. These are the same areas Stuccospec probed/reported as “Firm”. More importantly, several weeks after Stucco Check’s inspection, we hired a second contractor to re-do the repairs. They removed the first contractor’s stucco and we all witnessed firsthand the beam was not “Firm” as Stuccospec had claimed; it was rotted in areas [redacted] had probed. We saw firsthand that Stuccospec was absolutely wrong and Stucco Check was right (see sample Photo1 of beam). Also wood in other repaired areas they had refused to inspect was damaged (see sample Photo2). These are just samples of what was documented.(6) Stuccospec’s negligence, misrepresentation and horrible misconduct by reporting inaccurate info led to a +$13,000 bill for us. It would be interesting to see their reaction if someone does to them what they did to us. Keeping that in mind, we did not use an ugly language, we could but we do not, factually their actions have been beyond ugly. Three months has passed since filing this complaint; they must realize that they: took our money, fooled us, provided a beyond horrible service, caused us a lot of hassle/mental stress, and have not attempted to take care of any mistakes. They still do not hold themselves accountable for conducting a horrible inspection. Did they care that we were suffering when they left us in the dark by ignoring our technical questions and follow-up requests? Did they care that their fraudulent actions caused us a significant amount of pain? To this day they clearly don’t. You cause pain for others, you will experience pain. Wonder how many of their “extremely loyal clients” actually double check what Stuccospec tells them. Stuccospec’s continual denial of providing a horrible service and customer blaming strategy is irrational and absurd.Our Thanks and Regards to the Revdex.com
HII deny this claim and will not respondBeth [redacted] Tell us why here
Dear Dispute Resolution Team,
The requested inspection reports and high-res color photos
are attached
In Stuccospec’s Report, please note:
1.
Page 6, Fand Brows of the table: They claim the left and right sides of beam are “Firm”
They claimed there’s no damageThat's absolutely wrong as will be explained
2.
Page 5, 3rd row of the table: Flat
Surfaces were coated with elastomeric and that’s a favorable detail according to them, meaning
without metal caps things are working fine
Stuccospec’s report was not making any sense because the signs
of failure (very long and wide cracks on supposedly repaired stucco walls) were
all over the place and growing at an alarming rateBy the way, Stuccospec’s report is not showing
all cracks properly (we have them documented in high-res)Anyways, weeks
later, we hired another inspection firm, Stucco Check, to figure out what’s
really going on hereStucco Check identified all repair issues/damagesThey
said the work done by the contractor not only fixed original issues but
actually made them worseThey stated the beam and wood in repaired areas is
not “Firm,” it’s damagedPlease see Page 5, Page 7, and Item on Page of
Stucco Check’s Report that illustrates all damagesNote that the terms “Soft” and
“No Substrate” and sometimes “Semi Soft” (in their report referring to the
Substrate Condition) means there’s damage
After Stucco Check’s inspection, weeks later, we hired a
second contractorThey removed the first contractor’s stuccoWe all witnessed
firsthand the beam was not “Firm” as Stuccospec had claimed; it was rotted
Please see the attached Photo #of badly damaged beamBut that’s not allWood in other
areas the first contractor had repaired was rotted tooPlease see the attached
Photo #of damaged woodStuccospec was absolutely wrong and Stucco Check was right
Thanks and Regards
Sent: Friday, September 09, 4:PM Subject: Re: Revdex.com Complaint ID *** ***, This is in response to the Revdex.com complaint that you filedLook at elevation #(detail picture) which shows that there are no visible weep holes Since you contacted
the Revdex.com we will forward to the Revdex.com a copy of the report and all of your email correspondance Again, we have never suggested to seal over weep holes in our years of business Our report does not suggest to seal over weep holes Greg Carter, your contractor absolutely knows to not seal over weep holes It is not even evident from your email that weep holes are present One of your emails stated that the original installer of the windows, may have sealed over weep holes Weep holes are not visible on your home Our report clearly states that there are no visible weep holes Beth Harbison StuccoSpec / Safe Aire Technology 936-441-0016 office *** cell [email protected] [email protected] fx 281-966-www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
Deae Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint This complaint was originally sent to the business by Revdex.com on 12/8/for their responseStuccospec had approximately days to provide a response in writing to Revdex.comThey failed to provide a response in the specified time periodMultiple (to the best of my knowledge, 4) follnotices had to be sent by Revdex.com to the business as reminders requesting a responseThe last one was sent on 1/3/Today, 1/11/2017, after over days, the business finally decided to actually write few words and postpone the process to 1/20/That is over days to provide some kind of a responseThis is unacceptableTo suggest that they're "investigating it now" is again simply an attempt to stall the processI demand immediate act on Stuccospec's behalf and would urge the Revdex.com step in to make this happenMore than a fair amount of time to respond was already given to the business to respondIn return, they did notThis simply means the business decided to keep ignoring Revdex.com's notices multiple timesThanks and Regards
Regards,
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint Subject: Re: Window Problem From: *** CC: [email protected] Date: Fri, Sep 16:52:-To: [email protected] would be happy to show you the weep holes which are misidentified in the photo in your report and demonstrate how they work. Now that they are uncovered, when I pour water into them on the inside of the window sill it flows through the weep holes to the outside of the house as it should Seeing is believingI invite you to witness this for yourself.Your inspector made an error on my home inspection and also on several inspections of my neighbors' homes built at the same time.My original note to you was written in good faith to help to prevent that your inspectors make similar errors in the futureAt a minimum I was expecting an apology. Your continual denial of the problem has really disappointed me which is why I decided to write to the Revdex.com.Speaking of concerns, I have read online about a customer who was not happy that Gregg M*** never returned their phone calls or text messagesThis also happened to me as you may recall. I did not mention this to the Revdex.com*** Sent from my ***
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 4:54 PMTo: drteamSubject: Re: Complaint ID #[redacted] I will briefly layout what we did for [redacted].04/17/2017 --Original "Moisture Assessment Report" --We found excessive moisture intrusion and some water damage behind the stucco and provided a report on how to minimize future moisture intrusion. [redacted] DID NOT follow our advice as submitted in the report. Metal caps on flat walls were not installed in 04/2014 and resulted in more water intrusion.04/03/2015 --"VISUAL AND LIMITED MOISTURE REPORT" --This report was very limited to only three moisture sites. This is what [redacted] wanted us to do. He did not want a full moisture assessment report. During this visit again dated 04/03/2015 we cleary stated that there was continued water intrusion. This is verified with high moisture readings and large cracks. We clearly noted during this visit that [redacted] did not install the metal caps on flat walls as requested a year earlier. Furthermore , water damaged building materials can occur within the first year of a house being built. Approximately 17 months later after our original inspection [redacted] decided to do repairs and blame the water intrusion on StuccoSpec. This is unacceptable!!!! This guy has posted lots of negative crap about our company online (ie: Yelp, Angie's list etc). We are a very reputable company with extremely loyal clients in the real estate community. I will reframe from using all of the ugly language and name calling that he has said about our company. In closing , we found and identified the water intrusion on this house; we did not cause the water intrusion!!! [redacted] decided not to take the advise on our original report.All of our reports including his have this disclaimer below:This report only reports on the condition of the structure at the specific locations indicated. Locations were determined by the inspector according to the probable areas of possible moisture intrusion and in accordance with Industry Standards. The suggestions for corrections to prevent moisture intrusion and mold growth are given in accordance with the best judgment and experience that have been determined from previous inspections, repairs, and knowledge gained from our experience and other knowledgeable persons in the industry. No judgment is intended or given for any areas not reported on.Kevin and Beth [redacted]Beth [redacted]StuccoSpec / Safe Aire Technology936-441-0016 office832-818-3833 [email protected]@gmail.comfx 281-966-1780www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
HII deny this claim and will not respond. Beth [redacted] Tell us why here...
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:10 AMSubject: Re: Houston Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] HI We have recieved your complaint from customer [redacted] and we will respond by 01/20/2017 or sooner. Investigating it now. Thanks Beth [redacted] StuccoSpec / Safe Aire...
Technology 936-441-0016 office 832-818-3833 cell [email protected] [email protected] fx 281-966-1780 www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Revdex.com of Houston and South Texas- Complaint regarding Your Business #[redacted] This will be my 1st response to your complaint, [redacted]. Why did you not take our advice that was provided in our first report? Why did you not install metal caps? You purchased a home with multiple balconies that are open to the rainy houston weather. We did a subsequent report and again recommended metal caps. [redacted], I am a waterproofing consultant not a contractor. I did not repair your house. As I am reviewing the multiple emails from you I realize that you have been one of the most difficult clients in recent memory. I have been in business for 20 years and cannot recall a client that has posted negative reviews about my company and those who have worked for me. Stuccospec , clearly provided you with a clear and concise report detailing water intrusion issues. You decided not to follow our waterproofing guidelines. If I need to I will send the Revdex.com all of the emails from you and I and the contractor. I noticed one email from the contractor to you stating that if you continue to harass him he was going to file a law suit against you! I suggest that you move on with your life and quit contacting me / Let it go! Beth [redacted] StuccoSpec / Safe Aire Technology 936-441-0016 office 832-818-3833 cell [email protected] [email protected] fx 281-966-1780 www.houstonstuccoinspections.com
Dear Revdex.com:
We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve our complaint. It is unprofessional that Stuccospec decided to provide a new response after their last one-line response of: “I deny this claim and will not respond.” as seen on 2/26/2017. We do not tolerate such games.Stuccospec’s new response essentially consists of the same ignorant comments made on 1/18/2017. We addressed them in detail on 1/20/2017. Then the Revdex.com gave Stuccospec 10 days to provide a response back but Stuccospec failed to provide any response. This complaint should have been closed as unresolved back then but the Revdex.com gave Stuccospec yet another chance and sent them the inspection report by Stucco Check as a proof for their horrible misconduct. They were given another 20 days to respond and instead of providing a logical and reasonable explanation, their response was: “I deny this claim and will not respond.” What made Stuccospec provide such a response now? We are disgusted by their actions.This is our 6th letter to address their sloppy comments. It is evident that they are not paying any attention to what we state in the original complaint and the four subsequent detailed letters as they keep repeating the same ignorant comments. They must stop, go back and read all previous letters. Again, instead of addressing the main issues outlined in the original complaint letter, they are generating new distractions, keep blaming the customer and focusing on irrelevant matters. That is a typical escape strategy of a business that provides a horrible service and does not hold themselves accountable when confronted. They keep ignoring and do not address the issues properly let alone a simple apology for all the hassle/mental stress/pain their horrible service has put us through. We will address their irrelevant and ignorant comments in six paragraphs below:(1) FIRST REPORT: The focus of this complaint is Stuccospec’s Second Report (done post-repairs), not their First Report (done pre-repairs). Stuccospec is blaming us for their horrible Second Report stating we decided not to follow their waterproofing guidelines from the First Report. Absolutely wrong. Everything from their First Report was communicated to the stucco contractor THEY REFERRED who did the first round of repairs just few weeks after their First Report. Tremendous amount of time was consumed, ~60 pages of info were exchanged and ~$14,000 was spent to make sure the contractor they referred gets repairs done right. The issues in this complaint have nothing to do with not taking their advice yet they ignorantly state: approximately 17 months later after their original inspection [i.e. First Report] we decided to do repairs. Absolutely wrong; repairs were done few weeks after their First Report. This level of inconsistency, sloppiness and ignorance is “unacceptable!!!!”.(2) WATER INTRUSION: No one blamed them for water intrusion. The #1 issue with Stuccospec is that they inspected the repairs and reported inaccurate info in their Second Report. On its Page 6, in F4 and B4 rows of the table, they claim the left and right sides of beam are: “Firm” [meaning not damaged]. In addition, on the inspection day, in a recorded voice conversation, their inspector states: there’s no damage anywhere where in realty there was damage right in areas he had probed as will be explained later. The worst part is that they communicated this wrong/misrepresented info to the contractor and that led to him denying the existence of damages and not honoring the workmanship warranty. Also their negligence and misrepresentation has caused us to suffer a significant economic harm of +$13,000. We had to re-do the repairs instead of being able to utilize the warranty on the original repairs. Clear?(3) METAL CAPS: They still do not address the beam damage misrepresentation in their Second Report as witnessed only weeks after their inspection, something they claim as “Firm” [meaning not damaged]. Instead, they focus on caps. To their surprise, metal caps were not the source of damage here but since they ignorantly insist on it: (3A) We sent their First Report to the contractor they referred. He did not agree with the caps solution idea and said they will deter from the architectural beauty and replaced it with “a cementitious base coat…and multiple coatings of elastomeric wall primer” and stated this provides “proper waterproofing” and applied them; emails documented. (3B) In the recorded voice conversation, their inspector further states: “the coatings are working perfectly and there’s no damage” (3C) On Page 5, 3rd row of the table of their Second Report, Stuccospec states: “Flat surfaces have been coated with elastomeric coating. This is a favorable detail” [meaning without metal caps things are working fine]. (3D) During the re-doing of repairs, while removing the contractor’s stucco, we also saw firsthand the major source of damage was not the metal caps; it was something they had failed to identify.(4) “HE DID NOT WANT A FULL MOISTURE ASSESSMENT REPORT”: That is a shameless lie on the part of Stuccospec as will be explained. The emails requesting a detailed job that they ignored are documented. A bit of history, we sent Stuccospec’s Second Report to the contractor to utilize the warranty, his response: “all I see is few cracks...report is showing Firm substrate [referring to the beam; meaning no damage]…I will not fix anything under warranty.” An unreasonable response powered by Stuccospec’s horrible Second Report. Despite repeated requests to do proper documentation, their Second Report is not showing all cracks properly (we have them documented in high resolution). Reporting that the beam is “Firm” on both sides gave the contractor an excuse to deny damages and not honor the workmanship warranty. Stuccospec was copied on all communications, no comment from them. Their lousy inspection was not making any sense because signs of repair failure were all over the place and growing. The repairs were falling apart. Situations like this are every homeowner’s nightmare. So we asked their inspector, [redacted], some follow-up technical questions on his report; he never responded. Online reviews state that he does it to other homeowners too. That is horrible and very unprofessional. In the recorded voice conversation, on the inspection day, he states: “I’m here to help you today and a year from now.” Why did he choose to disappear after delivering his lousy report? What gives him the right to take people’s hard-earned money and not respond to their questions regarding his lousy inspection? [redacted] ignored us, so we brought several experts to help figure out what is going on. They all confirmed repair issues and said: “these are warranty calls; we cannot partially repair them because it would be touching someone else’s work and consequently difficult to warranty it.” Hence we asked Stuccospec: we would like to hire you in consulting mode, please come back and do a detailed inspection this time i.e. spend more time and pin-point all damages. Their final response was: “we do not like to get involved because the contractor is also a colleague of us.” What kind of inspector says that? An inspector hired by homeowners is supposed to do their job right or line up with contractors!? They left us in the dark with the issues/damages yet they now ignorantly claim that we did not want a full report. Again, we are disgusted by their actions.(5) THEIR DISCLAIMER: They think they can protect themselves with such nonsense. We are smarter than that. Only few weeks after Stuccospec’s Second Report we hired another inspection company, Stucco Check, to figure out what is really going on. They re-inspected the same areas Stuccospec had inspected. Stucco Check did the job right, identified all repair issues/damages, and provided a great customer service. They said: the work done by the contractor not only fixed original issues but actually made them worse. They stated the beam and wood in repaired areas are not “Firm” and are damaged. Please see Page 5, Page 7, and Item 1 on Page 12 of Stucco Check’s report that illustrates damages. Note the terms “Soft” and “No Substrate” and sometimes “Semi Soft” in their report that refer to the substrate condition; these terms mean there is damage. These are the same areas Stuccospec probed/reported as “Firm”. More importantly, several weeks after Stucco Check’s inspection, we hired a second contractor to re-do the repairs. They removed the first contractor’s stucco and we all witnessed firsthand the beam was not “Firm” as Stuccospec had claimed; it was rotted in areas [redacted] had probed. We saw firsthand that Stuccospec was absolutely wrong and Stucco Check was right (see sample Photo1 of beam). Also wood in other repaired areas they had refused to inspect was damaged (see sample Photo2). These are just samples of what was documented.(6) Stuccospec’s negligence, misrepresentation and horrible misconduct by reporting inaccurate info led to a +$13,000 bill for us. It would be interesting to see their reaction if someone does to them what they did to us. Keeping that in mind, we did not use an ugly language, we could but we do not, factually their actions have been beyond ugly. Three months has passed since filing this complaint; they must realize that they: took our money, fooled us, provided a beyond horrible service, caused us a lot of hassle/mental stress, and have not attempted to take care of any mistakes. They still do not hold themselves accountable for conducting a horrible inspection. Did they care that we were suffering when they left us in the dark by ignoring our technical questions and follow-up requests? Did they care that their fraudulent actions caused us a significant amount of pain? To this day they clearly don’t. You cause pain for others, you will experience pain. Wonder how many of their “extremely loyal clients” actually double check what Stuccospec tells them. Stuccospec’s continual denial of providing a horrible service and customer blaming strategy is irrational and absurd.Our Thanks and Regards to the Revdex.com