Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/16) */
Our company, Specialty Inspections, was hired by a potential buyer to inspect the property owned by [redacted] from [redacted] CA. Our services are to provide an unbiased report as to the condition of the home on the date of inspection. The report, per...
the terms of our agreement with the client, is confidential and intended for the clients sole use and benefit.
It is a Home Inspectors job to identify the current condition of a property, note any questionable items and make recommendations for further evaluation and/or repair as necessary by the appropriate licensed tradesperson. After further evaluation by the specific tradesperson, if the questionable item(s) are in fact acceptable, we recommend obtaining documentation to this fact and attaching it to the home inspection report.
Unfortunately for a "newer" home, as it was in this case, several questionable items were found. It should be noted that this is not common for a "newer" home unless the work that appears to be incorrect was performed by a "nonprofessional" which was evident in this case.
We highly recommend contacting the original contractor who built the home to have them make all necessary repairs. This should way there should be no out of pocket expenses for the homeowner, provided the work is under warranty, which is true of most reputable contractors.
Please see attached file with pictures of some of the defects identified in our report.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
My complain focus on false reports in Pest Inspection, while the response is quoting House Inspection, where some of false reports have been corrected already.
To show how untruthful the response is, I can point that in first sample showing "Evidence of leakage and/or excessive condensation"
We had re-inspection done on 02/02/16 conveniently after overnight rain and [redacted] of Specialty who is licenced contractor spend about 20 minutes on the attic trying to find evidence of leaks. When there is strong evidence of water condensation, [redacted] confirm in front of my agent that he did not find water puddles, no wet insulation, no drip and no soft or damaged wood-meaning the alleged leaks and sheating damage did not exist.
Whoever wrote the response after the reinspection made premeditated false statement to mislead Revdex.com investigation.
Same with with last sample where original report says "There are water stains on the underside of the roof eaves. " while the response makes false statement saying "Evidence of leakage and/or mildew under several sections of eves" Another false statement to mislead Revdex.com.
Coming how the Specialty Inspections operate- they seem to hire inspectors that can't find the job otherwise.
Pest Inspector lives in [redacted], what makes over 100 miles round trip to Orinda. There is no way the inspector would spend 1/2 a day, facing about $200 truck operating expense to collect $310 in inspection fees.
The only logic explanation is that [redacted] pays kick-backs to inspectors - for generating 5-digits contracts for his company and kickback sure can be good motivation for making false and/or overblown reports.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 21, 2016/03/10) */
We believe it would serve all parties' best interests if Mr. [redacted] were to get a second opinion from another qualified firm. If this resolves the issue, we ask that Mr. [redacted] kindly drop the complaint. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call us. Mr. [redacted], best wishes on the sale of your house. Thank you.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2016/03/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
So I did hire reputable company to do real pest inspection.
I did repair 2 of the real issues with material cost of $35 and reputable inspector did not found any of other 15 points from 1st raport.
He did found corner trim with missing caulk, what Specialty inspector overlook.
I take Specialty refusal to explain bogus reports as admittance to making intentional false reports.
The following job bids were pointing above $30,000
Final conclusion - Specialty Inspection report was 88% false with clear intention for construction scam.
Have copy of new report available for Revdex.com.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/16) */
Our company, Specialty Inspections, was hired by a potential buyer to inspect the property owned by [redacted] from [redacted] CA. Our services are to provide an unbiased report as to the condition of the home on the date of inspection. The report, per...
the terms of our agreement with the client, is confidential and intended for the clients sole use and benefit.
It is a Home Inspectors job to identify the current condition of a property, note any questionable items and make recommendations for further evaluation and/or repair as necessary by the appropriate licensed tradesperson. After further evaluation by the specific tradesperson, if the questionable item(s) are in fact acceptable, we recommend obtaining documentation to this fact and attaching it to the home inspection report.
Unfortunately for a "newer" home, as it was in this case, several questionable items were found. It should be noted that this is not common for a "newer" home unless the work that appears to be incorrect was performed by a "nonprofessional" which was evident in this case.
We highly recommend contacting the original contractor who built the home to have them make all necessary repairs. This should way there should be no out of pocket expenses for the homeowner, provided the work is under warranty, which is true of most reputable contractors.
Please see attached file with pictures of some of the defects identified in our report.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
My complain focus on false reports in Pest Inspection, while the response is quoting House Inspection, where some of false reports have been corrected already.
To show how untruthful the response is, I can point that in first sample showing "Evidence of leakage and/or excessive condensation"
We had re-inspection done on 02/02/16 conveniently after overnight rain and [redacted] of Specialty who is licenced contractor spend about 20 minutes on the attic trying to find evidence of leaks. When there is strong evidence of water condensation, [redacted] confirm in front of my agent that he did not find water puddles, no wet insulation, no drip and no soft or damaged wood-meaning the alleged leaks and sheating damage did not exist.
Whoever wrote the response after the reinspection made premeditated false statement to mislead Revdex.com investigation.
Same with with last sample where original report says "There are water stains on the underside of the roof eaves. " while the response makes false statement saying "Evidence of leakage and/or mildew under several sections of eves" Another false statement to mislead Revdex.com.
Coming how the Specialty Inspections operate- they seem to hire inspectors that can't find the job otherwise.
Pest Inspector lives in [redacted], what makes over 100 miles round trip to Orinda. There is no way the inspector would spend 1/2 a day, facing about $200 truck operating expense to collect $310 in inspection fees.
The only logic explanation is that [redacted] pays kick-backs to inspectors - for generating 5-digits contracts for his company and kickback sure can be good motivation for making false and/or overblown reports.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 21, 2016/03/10) */
We believe it would serve all parties' best interests if Mr. [redacted] were to get a second opinion from another qualified firm. If this resolves the issue, we ask that Mr. [redacted] kindly drop the complaint. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call us. Mr. [redacted], best wishes on the sale of your house. Thank you.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2016/03/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
So I did hire reputable company to do real pest inspection.
I did repair 2 of the real issues with material cost of $35 and reputable inspector did not found any of other 15 points from 1st raport.
He did found corner trim with missing caulk, what Specialty inspector overlook.
I take Specialty refusal to explain bogus reports as admittance to making intentional false reports.
The following job bids were pointing above $30,000
Final conclusion - Specialty Inspection report was 88% false with clear intention for construction scam.
Have copy of new report available for Revdex.com.