The Bugman

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The Bugman did not conduct a proper termite inspection. The other termite company we hired, [redacted] , immediately found termite mud holes in the direct vicinity of the area where the Bugman recommended that termite damage to the basement joist be repaired. These mud tubes were not just found in areas where insulation material was removed, as the Bugman states. In fact, the Bugman never reported any mud tubes at all even though mud tubes were clearly visible in multiple locations in our basement. Some mud tubes were behind insulation that can be very easily removed while other mud tubes were not obstructed from view at all. The bottom line is that if [redacted] found the termite mud tubes then the Bugman should have found them, but he failed to do so. [redacted] did find active termite activity as noted in the report. Those mud tubes did not spontaneously create themselves. Mud tubes are direct signs of active termite activity, which is why we chose to have [redacted] conduct termite treatment. The Bugman also writes that he did not give advice on structural repairs, which is not true. The Bugman found termite damage to basement joists and indicated in his report that the damaged joists were repaired. By their nature, basement joists are part of the structural integrity of a house. The Bugman should not have advised that the damage to the joists be repaired because, as he acknowledges, he does not have the competency to conduct or approve structural repairs. Emails from our realtor indicate that the Bugman did advise the sellers that the damage was properly repaired and therefore he is liable for those repairs. If the Bugman did not indeed indicate that the termite repairs were adequate we need that from him in writing so that we can file an ethics complaint against the seller’s realtor for being dishonest. Regards, [redacted]

July 28, I understand the client's dissatisfaction with the eventsHowever, the complaint is not validA thorough wood destroying insect inspection was carried out in May 2015, in line with industry standards, and the inspection report accurately states that there was no active
termite activity and that the property had been treated for termites at an earlier stageI found damage from past activity, and indicated that this had to be repaired, which was doneThe May report, therefore, correctly says that earlier termite damage to a fascia board and joists in the basement had been repairedAs clearly indicated in the standard wood destroying insect inspection report of the National Pest Control Association, this assessment is based on a purely visual inspection of accessible areas of the houseFurthermore, the report explicitly states that parts of the basement could not be inspected because they were obstructed or inaccesibleNo mud tubes were visible at the time of the inspectionGiven the absence of current termite activity, no treatment was recommended.After the house was purchased, insulation material in the basement was removed, which exposed areas that were not visible at the time of the inspectionAs a result, mud tubes became visible, that could not be seen in May and therefore were not covered by the inspection reportAt that time, the purchaser contracted another pest control company that, I was told, also did not find current termite activity, but which nonetheless recommended treatment, which it then carried out at the purchasers requestI, however, was not consulted at any time after my initial reportI was asked to revisit the property only after these events, and confirmed the earlier assessment that there was no active termite infestationThe inspection report does not indicate whether earlier repairs were done 'properly'--merely that they were doneAnd I did not give advice on structural repairsSuch advice would go beyond my responsibility and competencyFurthermore, the inspection report clearly states that "If any questions arise regarding damage indicated by this report, it is recommended that the buyer or any interested parties contact a qualified structural professional to determine the extent of damage and the need for repairs"I trust that this information clarifies what happened, and why the complaint is not valid
Best regards,
Joel N

July 28, 2015I understand the client's dissatisfaction with the eventsHowever, the complaint is not validA thorough wood destroying insect inspection was carried out in May 2015, in line with industry standards, and the inspection report accurately states that there was no active termite
activity and that the property had been treated for termites at an earlier stageI found damage from past activity, and indicated that this had to be repaired, which was doneThe May report, therefore, correctly says that earlier termite damage to a fascia board and joists in the basement had been repairedAs clearly indicated in the standard wood destroying insect inspection report of the National Pest Control Association, this assessment is based on a purely visual inspection of accessible areas of the houseFurthermore, the report explicitly states that parts of the basement could not be inspected because they were obstructed or inaccesibleNo mud tubes were visible at the time of the inspectionGiven the absence of current termite activity, no treatment was recommended.After the house was purchased, insulation material in the basement was removed, which exposed areas that were not visible at the time of the inspectionAs a result, mud tubes became visible, that could not be seen in May and therefore were not covered by the inspection report.At that time, the purchaser contracted another pest control company that, I was told, also did not find current termite activity, but which nonetheless recommended treatment, which it then carried out at the purchasers requestI, however, was not consulted at any time after my initial reportI was asked to revisit the property only after these events, and confirmed the earlier assessment that there was no active termite infestation.The inspection report does not indicate whether earlier repairs were done 'properly'--merely that they were doneAnd I did not give advice on structural repairsSuch advice would go beyond my responsibility and competencyFurthermore, the inspection report clearly states that "If any questions arise regarding damage indicated by this report, it is recommended that the buyer or any interested parties contact a qualified structural professional to determine the extent of damage and the need for repairs".I trust that this information clarifies what happened, and why the complaint is not validBest regards,Joel N

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The Bugman did not conduct a proper termite inspectionThe
other termite company we hired, ***, immediately found termite mud holes
in the direct vicinity of the area where the Bugman recommended that termite
damage to the basement joist be repairedThese mud tubes were not just found
in areas where insulation material was removed, as the Bugman statesIn fact,
the Bugman never reported any mud tubes at all even though mud tubes were
clearly visible in multiple locations in our basementSome mud tubes were
behind insulation that can be very easily removed while other mud tubes were
not obstructed from view at all The
bottom line is that if *** found the termite mud tubes then the Bugman
should have found them, but he failed to do so
*** did find active termite activity as noted in the
reportThose mud tubes did not spontaneously create themselvesMud tubes are
direct signs of active termite activity, which is why we chose to have ***
conduct termite treatment
The Bugman also writes that he did not give advice on
structural repairs, which is not trueThe Bugman found termite damage to
basement joists and indicated in his report that the damaged joists were
repairedBy their nature, basement joists are part of the structural integrity
of a houseThe Bugman should not have advised that the damage to the joists be
repaired because, as he acknowledges, he does not have the competency to
conduct or approve structural repairs Emails from our realtor indicate that the
Bugman did advise the sellers that the damage was properly repaired and
therefore he is liable for those repairs.
If the Bugman did not indeed indicate that the termite repairs were
adequate we need that from him in writing so that we can file an ethics
complaint against the seller’s realtor for being dishonest
Regards,
*** ***

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The Bugman did not conduct a proper termite inspection. The
other termite company we hired, [redacted], immediately found termite mud holes
in the direct vicinity of the area where the Bugman recommended that termite
damage to the basement joist be repaired. These mud tubes were not just found
in areas where insulation material was removed, as the Bugman states. In fact,
the Bugman never reported any mud tubes at all even though mud tubes were
clearly visible in multiple locations in our basement. Some mud tubes were
behind insulation that can be very easily removed while other mud tubes were
not obstructed from view at all.  The
bottom line is that if [redacted] found the termite mud tubes then the Bugman
should have found them, but he failed to do so.
[redacted] did find active termite activity as noted in the
report. Those mud tubes did not spontaneously create themselves. Mud tubes are
direct signs of active termite activity, which is why we chose to have [redacted]
conduct termite treatment.
The Bugman also writes that he did not give advice on
structural repairs, which is not true. The Bugman found termite damage to
basement joists and indicated in his report that the damaged joists were
repaired. By their nature, basement joists are part of the structural integrity
of a house. The Bugman should not have advised that the damage to the joists be
repaired because, as he acknowledges, he does not have the competency to
conduct or approve structural repairs.  Emails from our realtor indicate that the
Bugman did advise the sellers that the damage was properly repaired and
therefore he is liable for those repairs. 
If the Bugman did not indeed indicate that the termite repairs were
adequate we need that from him in writing so that we can file an ethics
complaint against the seller’s realtor for being dishonest.
Regards,
[redacted]