The San Diego Real Estate Inspection Company

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Mr [redacted] said "In the absence of any indication or evidence of a leak such as staining, damaged drywall, etc., there was no way to assume that a deck (or roof) will leak." This statement is one of many I cannot agree I separately sent to Mr [redacted] and his insurance company detailing how the inspector failed to point out the issues with pictures, among them the roof leak problem is just one of many Had the inspector followed [redacted] *** and pointed out the cracks on the roof deck and the stains on the ceiling, I could have asked the an deck specialist the inspect it, or ask for credits from the seller or warranty from the seller I never accuse them of not able to predict what would happen when it rained I only complain their missing something that could easily be spotted by an home inspected.In fact, I know Mr [redacted] is a nice person; my problem is how his insurance company handle this case from the beginning Not only their insurance company denied any errors and ignore any evidence, they asked me to spend time to gather more evidence and just to ignore them Refunding me the money is one of the two conditions for the settlement.The other condition is to have the insurance company carefully review my claim and explain why the evidence are ignored.Sincerely, [redacted] Regards, [redacted] ***

The home inspection performed for the client was performed in accordance with well-established home inspection standardsThe client is claiming that the furnace was installed incorrectly, even though it is an acceptable installationThe inspection confirms proper operation, which was done with a
thermal imaging camera, and it performed as intended on the day of the inspectionWe have repeatedly asked the client to itemize the defects he claims with no responseThe client’s claim for the value of the damages of $750,is the price of the house, not the price of any repairs. Again, we have repeatedly asked the client what damages he alleged, and he has not responded to us, nor provided any written statements or evaluations from a licensed heating contractor. Sincerely,*** ***PresidentThe Real Estate Inspection Company(858) 774-4905***@sdinspect.com

This complaint has been carefully reviewed and the inspection met or exceeded the standards of practice of a home inspectionA home inspection is visual in nature, as agreed to by the clientThat means that home inspectors do not perform any destructive testing, flood testing, or any specialized
tests to make a system failIn this case, there was no way to determine that the deck would fail during the first rainIn fact, the seller had recently painted the interior of the house which likely deliberately concealed any evidence that would have indicated a leakIn the absence of any indication or evidence of a leak such as staining, damaged drywall, etc., there was no way to assume that a deck (or roof) will leakThis was clearly concealed by the seller who must have know that the deck was leaking.We have responded to this client and included our insurance company who evaluated the claim and denied it based on the limited scope of a home inspection and the agreement signed by the client

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Mr. [redacted] said "In the absence of any indication or evidence of a leak such as staining, damaged drywall, etc., there was no way to assume that a deck (or roof) will leak."  This statement is one of many I cannot agree.  I separately sent to Mr. [redacted] and his insurance company detailing how the inspector failed to point out the issues with pictures, among them the roof leak problem is just one of many.   Had the inspector followed [redacted] [redacted] and pointed out the cracks on the roof deck and the stains on the ceiling, I could have asked the an deck specialist the inspect it, or ask for credits from the seller or warranty from the seller.  I never accuse them of not able to predict what would happen when it rained.  I only complain their missing something that could easily be spotted by an home inspected.In fact, I know Mr. [redacted] is a nice person; my problem is how his insurance company handle this case from the beginning.  Not only their insurance company denied any errors and ignore any evidence, they asked me to spend time to gather more evidence and just to ignore them.   Refunding me the money is one of the two conditions for the settlement.The other condition is to have the insurance company carefully review my claim and explain why the evidence are ignored.Sincerely,[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]