U S Inspect

October 1, 2014Dear [redacted] :Please find enclosed a check in the amount of $issued in full settlement of any and all claims against U.SInspect as set forth in the General Release of All Claims you signed in favor of U.SInspectI am pleased we were able to reach a satisfactory resolution of the concerns you raised in connection with the home inspection services conducted by U.SInspect.Respectfully yours,Edward H III Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by US Inspect to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted]

Unfortunately, we used this company to inspect our new home we purchased in the summer of We paid an extra $for an aservice of a more detailed inspection of the home foundations and a crawl space under the houseThe Atlanta inspector, Kurt, was friendly and professional enough in his demeanor, but in the end cost us thousands of dollars we didn’t have and did an unsatisfactory jobEven though obviously visible contours were noted on our floor as an improvement area to be aware of in the report he wrote, there was never an indication that any structural problems existed (and were the cause of these “bubbles”) or the fact that in order to put on new floors, which we clearly said we would be doing, we would require a large number repairs to create a flat surface underneath the old flooringIn short, we ended up having to pay over $in repairs to a faulty structure (which our eventual contractor demonstrated was the result of amateur, lousy repairs the previous owner had attempted and never wrote in the disclosure as they are legally obligated to do) and to deal with cracked sheetrock after our house was – of necessity - jacked upThere are so many levels to how bad our experience with USInspect was, to the extra-long wait times to ever hear back from their chilly “Customer Service” (i.ecustomer no-service!) Director Michelle A., even after re-calling three times over more than a week (this happened multiple times), to Matt H [redacted] the Atlanta regional manager who came to our home and repeatedly told us how USInspect would honor its commitments to us and make things right and then in the end never returned calls or responded to closing questions after he was clearly told by his superiors they wouldn’t be helping us or taking any responsibility for the thousands we had to payWhat was the end result? They reimbursed us the $for the inspectionBetter than nothing but the stress and time made it so not worth itOn a last note, they of course have their story, like how we made the repairs without getting three price quotes (which they require you to do before considering a reimbursement), but I’ll say thisThe repairs themselves took weeks, and then it was weeks more to do the flooring work itselfWe had to stay at my parents for 6+ weeks over the summer, three hours commute from my wife’s workSo all I can say is, yes there may in theory be some way they will pay more than the reimbursement for the inspection fee, but there’s no way that was ever going to work for usOur advice? In short, just save yourself the possible harm and nuisance and shop somewhere else(Also note they don’t allow the option to leave reviews on their FB page or websiteI wonder why.)

February 3, 2015BY EMAILMr [redacted] Trade Practice Consultant Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10" Floor Washington, D.C20005-Email: [redacted] Re: Complaint ID [redacted] – [redacted] ***; [redacted] ***, Silver Spring, MD 20904Dear Mr [redacted] :Reference is made to the complaint [redacted] has lodged against U.SInspect with the Revdex.com in connection with home inspection services conducted on May 27, at the above-referenced property address.Please find attached to the email to which this letter is attached an email I sent to Mr [redacted] on Monday, January 12, and an email I sent to Mr [redacted] on Monday, January 19, You will see attached to the email dated January 19, the U.SInspect response to the concerns that Mr [redacted] communicatedThe emails apparently did not find their way to the email address for Mr [redacted] that Mr***’s legal representative, Lieutenant [redacted] * [redacted] , provided to U.SInspect in his letter dated December 5, I trust you will for [redacted] the U.SInspect response to Mr***.I appreciate the efforts of the Revdex.com to facilitate a satisfactory resolution of this complaint and can be reached directly at ###-###-#### or by email at [redacted] should you have any questions.Respectfully yours,Edward EH**, III Vice President, General Counsel & SecretaryAttachments: As Stated

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted] ***

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
All though I am pleased that they are refunding my inspection cost of $375, I still disagree with the fact that there were "no shortcomings in the inspection services conducted by Mr C***" The main thing that was stated to us by Mr C*** was that "he was unable to determine if the work had been performed by a licensed contractor" and he "advised us to ask the seller about the repair work" Nothing was mentioned that he was "unable to determine if the repairs would be able to provide permanent support" If this comment had been made, then we would have contacted a contractor to see if the home was structurally sound However, we were told that "no additional concerns were noted" So this final statement is not accurate Again, if that final statement had been made by our inspector, we would have proceeded differently - probably by contacting a contractor and assessing the costs of fixing the structural issues with the seller of the home at that time Instead we ended up incurring those costs in order to sell our home, which was $
So while we are thankful that our home inspection was refunded, since we might as well have not even received one It really does very little in the whole scheme of things.
Regards,
*** ***

September 25, Dear *** ***:Thank you for the opportunity to respond once again to the above-referenced complaint that *** *** submitted against U.SInspect in connection with radon testing conducted during the month of April at the house located at *** *** *** in *** ***, Illinois.While it is not clear to me what point *** *** is trying to make with her multiple references to ADP, I can assure you that U.SInspect has never made it a secret that the radon test conducted at *** *** *** in April was done for *** and its employeeIndeed, the Radon Test Report released by U.SInspect identifies *** as the clientIn this regard, I have no idea what *** *** means when she says it “would appear that there is a significant conflict of interest” relating to the fact that *** engaged the services of U.SInspect to conduct the radon test.I can likewise assure you that nothing contained in my letter to you dated September 1, should be interpreted as questioning the authority of the Illinois Emergency Management AgencyI simply explained that U.SInspect had been, up to that point in time, unsuccessful in its efforts to reach *** *** to discuss the *** Radon Program review of this matter and the non-comformance letter dated May 14, that *** issued to Wayne K***, the U.SInspect Radon Technician who conducted the radon test at *** *** ***.With regard to the radon test, I note that *** *** continues to insist that MrKankovsky represented to her real estate agent that a second radon test monitor was placed in the houseAs I wrote in my letter dated September 1, 2014, there was one test monitor and one set of data, and MrKankovsky said nothing to anyone regarding a second radon test monitorThus, I can only presume that some sort of misunderstanding exists on the part of MsLopuszanski’s real estate agentAs I explained in my letter dated September 1, 2014, U.SInspect is of the opinion that VSI Radon Reduction Corpwould have had reservations about proceeding with mitigation services at *** *** *** unless they were satisfied that the placement of the radon test monitor some inches further away from the sump pit would not have brought about a material reduction in the radon concentration from the pCi/L that was recorded during the test period that commenced April 16, and concluded April 18, Hence, we remain steadfast in our view that the resolution of this complaint would not be equitable if U.SInspect were to cover the full $1,cost of the mitigationAccordingly, U.SInspect remains willing to issue *** *** a settlement payout in the amount of $500, subject to our receipt of the enclosed General Release of All Claims, which we require to bring disputes to a closeA settlement check in the amount of $will be mailed to *** *** at Reserve Drive, *** ***, Illinois without delay upon my receipt of the signed and notarized General Release of All Claims, which may be mailed to my attention or faxed directly to me at 703.293.1613.I trust you will forward this response letter and the General Release of All Claims to *** *** so that she may be advised that U.SInspect is prepared to resolve this matter as outlined aboveBeyond that, I will simply say again that I appreciate the efforts of the Revdex.com to facilitate a satisfactory resolution of this complaint and do hope *** *** will look favorably upon our offerIf you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be reached by telephone at or by email at ehow(a)usinspect.comRespectfully yours,
Edward H III Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

November 17, Dear *** ***:
Reference is made to the complaint *** *** has lodged against U.SInspect with the Revdex.com in connection with a general home inspection conducted on September 30, at the above-referenced property
address.Following the filing of the complaint with the Revdex.com, *** *** filed a Civil Action on October 21, in the Magistrate Court of *** County, State of Georgia, Case ID No***, against Matthew H***, who is employed by U.SInspect as Field Manager for the Atlanta area, and a separate Civil Action on October 22, in the Magistrate Court of *** County, State of Georgia, Case ID No***, against Greg A***, the U.SInspect employee inspector who conducted the general home inspection at the subject propertyAccordingly, it seems that *** *** now has a preference for having her concerns evaluated in a forum other than the Revdex.comWith regard to the complaint, please know that U.SInspect completed a comprehensive review of a claim that *** ***, through her daughter *** ***, submitted to U.SInspect on October 8, U.SInspect concluded that Greg A*** had provided a quality general home inspection and that the water leak reported by *** *** occurred sometime after the September 30, date of the general home inspectionPlease see attached correspondence dated October 23, that Michelle A***, our Director of Customer Support Services, sent to *** *** and *** ***The correspondence evidences the fact that MsA*** conducted a thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the concerns communicated by *** ***, and concluded that there were no shortcomings in the inspection conducted by Greg A***Having carefully considered the particulars of the complaint filed with the Revdex.com and the Civil Actions that *** *** has filed, I concur with the assessmentIn closing, *** ***, I will simply tell you that all of us at U.SInspect take very seriously complaints filed with the Revdex.comWhile we regret the fact that *** *** and *** *** had the misfortune of experiencing a water leak following the purchase of the house at *** *** *** *** **, we remain satisfied that U.SInspect met, in all respects, its obligations in connection with the general home inspection that was conducted on September 30, 2014, and in its handling of the concerns *** *** brought to our attention on a postinspection basisI appreciate the efforts of the Revdex.com and can be reached directly by email at ***@usinspect.com or by telephone at *** should you have any questionsRespectfully yours,Edward H Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

June 4, 2014Dear *** ***:Thank you for the opportunity to respond again to the complaint Erin Bentrim lodged against USInspect with the Revdex.com in connection with home inspection services conducted on October 14, at the abovereferenced property addressWhen I reviewed the email message dated May 15, from the Revdex.com, I read that *** *** had rejected the USInspect response dated May 12, I understood this to mean that *** *** rejected the U.SInspect offer to refund the $she paid to have the inspection services conducted, and I gathered from the remainder of her statement that she wanted to be reimbursed for the replacement of the back door for her houseThus, USInspect offered to pay *** *** the $she spent at *** to purchase a *** Storm Door ($224) and a *** Steel Door Unit ($159).In the email message dated May 28, from the Revdex.com, *** *** explains that she was asking that USInspect reimburse her for the cost of two doors for the back of her house in addition to a refund of the $she paid to USInspect for the inspection servicesU.SInspect remains steadfast in its view that the general home inspection conducted by our inspector, *** ***, measured up to prevailing Standards of Practice, and that the inspection report issued to *** *** accurately communicated the visible and apparent conditions that existed at the residence at the time of the inspectionWe recognize, however, that *** *** believes otherwise and found the inspection services to be less than satisfactory.Since the essence of compromise is reaching an outcome that both parties find acceptable, even if they do so begrudgingly, USInspect is prepared to pay *** *** the $she spent at *** to purchase a *** Storm Door together with a refund of the $she paid to have the inspection services conducted, as provided for in the Inspection Services Agreement and subject to our receipt of the attached General Release of All Claims, which we require in order to process settlement paymentsA settlement check in the amount of $will be mailed to *** *** without delay upon my receipt of the signed and notarized General Release of All Claims, which may be emailed or mailed to my attention or faxed directly to me at ***.In closing, *** ***, I note again that USInspect has approached this matter from the vantage point of evaluating how best to move beyond contrasting points of view to resolve things amicablyTo that end, USInspect has put its best foot forward in extending a settlement offer that goes above and beyond the agreed upon return offee limitation set forth in the Inspection Services AgreementIn this regard, I do hope that *** *** finds favor with the steps we have taken to resolve the matter, and I will anticipate receipt of the General Release of All Claims.Respectfully yours,

[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:
While I am pleased with the refund of the home inspection, I still incurred major total repair costs of approximately $ In addition, there are other problems under the house in that same area that will need to be resolved in the futureFurthermore, I no longer have the option of asking the seller to pay for needed repairs or choosing not to buy the home In essence, I am stuck with no recourse except legal actionAlthough US Inspect insists *** could not see holes in the floor, damaged wood, and unsafe floor joists and refused to return to the home so I could show him the aforementioned issues, surely he could see a visibly rotting door back door?? I would like to request that at least I be reimbursed for the replacement of the door I think this is beyond reasonable since I am not requesting labor or other materials I am happy to provide a receipt
Regards,
*** ***

August 11, 2014Dear *** ***:Reference is made to the complaint *** *** has submitted against U.SInspect in connection with radon testing that was conducted during the month of April at the house located at *** *** *** in *** ***, Illinois.The
purpose of this letter is to notify the Revdex.com that the complaint does not include contract or invoice paperwork that would serve to verify the $1,that *** *** has stated is the amount she paid to have mitigation services performed at the houseAccordingly, U.SInspect is unable to complete its review of the complaint.Respectfully yours,Edward H III Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

[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: I have attached a copy of the paid invoice to *** Radon Reduction that reflects the $we had to pay for mitigation based on MrK***'s non-compliance inspection radon reading You may contact *** *** *** at *** at ###-###-#### or ###-###-#### if you have any questionsBased on US Inspects contract as the home inspection company for *** relocation of employees we were obligated to provide the original receipt for closing to the Buyer
Regards,
*** ***

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***,
and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

See Attachment

Re: [redacted]; ID #[redacted], Fort Worth, Texas 76244Dear Mr. [redacted]:Reference is made to the complaint [redacted] has lodged against U.S. Inspect with the Revdex.com in connection with home inspection services conducted on October 18, 2014 at the...

abovereferenced property address.I have reviewed the points set forth in the complaint and have concluded that the general home inspection conducted by Mr. Jerry Yerby measured up to the prevailing Standards of Practice and requirements promulgated by the Texas Real Estate Commission. My assessment notwithstanding, U.S. Inspect is prepared to honor [redacted]’s request for a refund of the fee paid to have the inspection conducted, as provided for in the Inspection Services Agreement. To that end, a settlement check in the amount of $585.00 will be mailed to [redacted] without delay upon my receipt of the enclosed General Release of All Claims, which we require to bring disputes to a close and which may be mailed to my attention or faxed directly to me at ###-###-####.
In closing, Mr. [redacted], I trust you will forward this response to [redacted], and I will simply tell you that all of us at U.S. Inspect take very seriously complaints that are placed with the Revdex.com. While we regret the fact that [redacted] found the inspection experience with U.S. Inspect to be less than satisfactory, we remain satisfied that U.S. Inspect met, in all respects, its obligations in connection with the inspection services that were conducted on October 18, 2014, and in its handling of the concerns brought to our attention on a post-inspection basis. I appreciate the efforts of the Revdex.com to facilitate a satisfactory resolution of this complaint and can be reached directly at ###-###-#### or by email at [redacted] should you have any questions.
Respectfully yours,
Edward E. [redacted]Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

[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:
 First I would like to correct an error that was made in US Inspects recent response and that is that my roof was replaced during escrow!  That is absolutely false and i'm not sure why Michelle A[redacted] made that statement.   We had already closed escrow and moved into the property before the roof was replaced.  I'm not quite sure how that is relevant to the issue at hand.  I am rejecting US Inspects response because they are once again missing the point and not addressing the exact issue at hand.  Traps were present (in the attic and storage closet attached to the rear of the house) during my home inspection! Dennis failed to disclose the traps and droppings in my home inspection report which did not allow me to address the problem during escrow like all of the other problems he brought to our attention in his report.  When the pest control company did their inspection they found 19 access points to my property to where the rats were gaining access to my home (attics, garage, and under the house).  If Dennis had of disclosed in his report about the traps and droppings and made the note to "further investigate with a pest control company" then we would have had found the access points and had the situation remedied during escrow.   
US Inspect continues to deter from the main issue at hand and that is their failure to disclose information during our home inspection while in escrow!  One additional item I would like to clarify is the statement that US Inspect made stating that "The [redacted]'s did not hire us!"  US Inspect were paid by us to provide our home inspection!  They were a preferred vendor on [redacted]'s list.  I would like it to be also noted that our realtor emailed Michelle A[redacted] on three separate occasions requesting US Inspects help with the situation and she never responded.  This resulted in [redacted] taking US Inspect off of their preferred vendor list. Regards,
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Hi [redacted]! I am out of town on an emergency but willing to accept the last offer. I think the term they used was "begrudgingly". I can get the release back early next week but wanted to document a response. Thank you!
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] Email: [redacted]March 18, 2015BY EMAILMr. [redacted] Trade Practice Consultant Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10"Floor Washington, D.C. 20005-3404 Email: [redacted]Re: Complaint ID [redacted] – Dr. [redacted]; [redacted], Silver Spring, MD 20904Dear Mr. [redacted]:Thank you for the opportunity to respond once again to the complaint Dr. [redacted] has lodged against U.S. Inspect with the Revdex.com in connection with the general home inspection conducted on May 27, 2014 at the above-referenced property address.We value our clients and appreciate their feedback. That said, there are occasions where two sides are left to agree to disagree. This is one of those occasions.In rejecting the settlement offer U.S Inspect extended to refund the $410 fee paid to U.S. Inspect for the inspection and pay an additional $1,000 to[redacted] whatever repair or replacement costs Dr. [redacted] wished to incur in connection with loose flagstones at a side porch stoop area of the house and damaged trim, Dr. [redacted] alleged fraud on the part of U.S. Inspect. U.S. Inspect vehemently disputes the allegation and the questions Dr. [redacted] posed to me with regard to U.S. Inspect ethics and integrity during a lengthy telephone conversation we had on Tuesday, February 17, 2015.U.S. Inspect sentiments notwithstanding, I related to Dr. [redacted] during our telephone conversation the willingness on my part to review proposal, invoice, and any other paperwork he wished to provide to me in connection with the replacement of the boiler at his house. I explained to Dr. [redacted] that review of the paperwork would be useful to me in evaluating whether or not U.S. Inspect would be willing to reconsider its position and extend him a settlement offer in an amount above the $1,410 that was extended in my letter to him dated January 19, 2015. At the same time, I made it clear to Dr. [redacted] that while we would certainly prefer to see our disagreement resolved amicably, U.S. Inspect would not be willing to settle this matter for anything close to the $10,244.25 he and his legal representative, Lieutenant [redacted]. [redacted], told us was the amount paid to replace the boiler. Dr. [redacted] believes that a settlement figure in the amount of $10,244.25 is in order, but I maintain that he is completely mistaken when the points I have offered in support of the U.S. Inspect position are objectively evaluated and considered.
First of all, and contrary to what Dr. [redacted] appears to be suggesting in the response to the Revdex.com that was emailed to me on February 19, 2015, my letter to Dr. [redacted] dated January 19, 2015 did address the issues he had with flag stones and siding pertaining to the stoop and steps at the side of the house. Indeed, I acknowledged the fact that photographs taken by [redacted] during his post-inspection visit to the house on September 4, 2014 clearly showed some damage to the trim at the side porch, side window, front right corner of the house, and at the chimney, as well as two loose flagstones at the side porch stoop, all of which were pointed out by Dr. [redacted]’s wife during the visit. I then referred to the fact that Mr. [redacted] noted in the Inspection Report from the May 27, 2014 inspection that the exterior siding is deteriorated, that Mr. [redacted] specifically cited an area at the back of the house by the downspout, and that Mr. [redacted] reported that it is possible that hidden damage or deterioration exists behind the siding. Mr. [redacted] recommended that the [redacted]s have a qualified contractor replace deteriorated siding and repair any hidden damage, and the point I was making is that the [redacted]s would have been armed with an estimate of what it would cost to repair any and all of the damaged sections of trim at the house if they had invited a contractor out to take a look at the deteriorated exterior siding issue prior to closing, as it is surely reasonable to presume that a contractor called out to evaluate deteriorated exterior siding for the purpose of putting together a work proposal would not keep the evaluation strictly isolated to areas specifically cited in a home inspection report. In any event, when all was said and done, I had conceded the point made by Dr. [redacted] that Mr. [redacted] had not specifically noted the two loose flagstones and issues with the siding at the side of the house. From there, I related our effort to determine the approximate costs associated with having a contractor repair the damaged trim and re-secure the loose flagstones at the side porch stoop area of the house. We figured that Dr. [redacted] would probably pay something in the neighborhood of $600 and $1,000 if he elected to hire a handyman to make the repairs, so we offered Dr. [redacted] $1,000 to[redacted] whatever repair or replacement costs he wished to incur in connection with the damaged trim and loose flagstones.
Secondly, and with regard to Dr. [redacted]’s displeasure with the fact that Mr. [redacted] did not specifically note in the Inspection Report a silver dollar sized hole in the roof of the detached shed, I made clear in my January 19, 2015 letter to Dr. [redacted] that he and Lieutenant [redacted] have lost sight of the forest for the trees if they wish to hold firm on this ridiculous stance. Indeed, it is abundantly clear from the photographs in the Inspection Report that the shed was a far cry from pristine condition at the time the inspection took place on May 27, 2014, and Mr. [redacted] recommended that Dr. [redacted] have a qualified contractor repair the damaged sections.
Third, and with regard to the boiler that both Dr. [redacted] and Lieutenant [redacted] have indicated is the focal point of concern, Dr. [redacted] is mistaken in asserting that my letter to him dated January 19, 2015 tells a “version of the story” different from that he says was told by Mr. [redacted] during his postinspection visit to the house on September 4, 2014. I discussed Dr. [redacted]’s account of the postinspection visit at length with Mr. [redacted], and Mr. [redacted] was left to conclude that there had to have been a misunderstanding on the part of Dr. and Mrs. [redacted] in connection with comments he made during the September 4 visit, for he does not remember even uttering the word “thermostat” during the conversation he had with Mrs. [redacted], who was physically present at the house, and Dr. [redacted], who participated in the visit via telephone. If he did blurt out the word when talking about the boiler, he absolutely did not mean for Dr. and Mrs. [redacted] to come away from the conversation thinking that he had “cranked up the thermostat” during the inspection on May 27, 2014 to determine if the boiler was operating, for that is not at all what occurred.
I explained in the January 19, 2015 letter to Dr. [redacted] that Mr. [redacted] was able to determine that the boiler was in service at the time of the inspection on May 27, 2014, as the pilot light was working. Mr. [redacted] has been straightforward in telling both me and Michelle A[redacted], our Customer Support Director, that he did not operate the boiler — or certain of the other systems and components in the house, such as the appliances – on account of being told by Dr. [redacted]’s agent upon his arrival at the house that the sellers had not consented to having a home inspection conducted and would only agree to having a “friend of the buyer” look things over. Mr. [redacted] went on to tell me that while he had misgivings about proceeding with the engagement, he assumed that Dr. [redacted]’s agent was caught between a rock and a hard place, what with the [redacted]s not being able to attend the inspection and she (the agent) undoubtedly wanting to have some type of evaluation of the house performed during whatever contingency period Mr. [redacted] presumed the parties had agreed to prior to going for[redacted] with the transaction. Since he was already there, Mr. [redacted] simply decided that he would try to make the best out of an awk[redacted] situation and would do his best to work around the limitations that were communicated to him at the proverbial “eleventh hour.” Mr. [redacted] was put on the spot, and he told me that he even began to wonder, as the homeowner stood watch throughout most of his inspection, if the sales contract entered into between the [redacted]s and the sellers had ever even allowed for the performance of a home inspection.In determining that the boiler was in service on May 27, 2014, Mr. [redacted] felt around the unit and found that it was giving off warmth. This signaled to him that the pilot was lit, and while he did notice a couple of tags on the gas lines to and from the unit, he did not make anything of it since there was no sulfur-like smell in the room and since gas company technicians and contractors do not always remember to remove tags following repair services. The main takeaway for Mr. [redacted] was that the boiler was on its “last legs,” and he arrived at this conclusion based on the visually obvious obsolescence of its component parts, not the actual age of the unit, which he was unable to determine. Put another way, Mr. [redacted] recognized the boiler to be a dated system and realized that the era of having routine maintenance and repairs performed to keep a system like this in working order had come and gone. So even though he concluded that it was still in working order at that particular point in time, he opined that it was going to die sooner rather than later and that replacing the unit to bring everything up to existing code requirements for heating systems would be necessary. Thus, he reported the following:The heating system is nearing the end of its useful life. It is still functioning, but no prediction can be made regarding future performance. It is suggested that you budget for replacement.Dr. [redacted] prefers to focus all of his attention on the other finding Mr. [redacted] reported in connection with the boiler, that is, “the system is in acceptable condition.” While I for one can certainly appreciate the $10,244.25 reasons why Dr. [redacted] would rather us go down this path and completely disregard the statement that served to inform him that the need for replacement of the system was right around the corner, U.S. Inspect is unwilling to give Dr. [redacted] a free pass when it comes to accepting responsibility for what has transpired. Indeed, I pointedly asked Dr. [redacted] when – after having read through the Inspection Report and learning that the heating system was nearing the end of its useful life, that no prediction could be made regarding its future performance, and that it was suggested that he budget for replacement — he anticipated he would have to “bite the bullet” and spring for a new system. Dr. [redacted] told me that he did not have to answer my question, and while that is true in this venue, it is certainly fair game in other settings.
From our vantage point, the argument Dr. [redacted] makes regarding VA Loan qualifications and the one particular finding giving the VA “enough green light to allow for the VA Loans to accept the condition of the house in its current state without further requirements of repairs before closure of the property” is entirely irrelevant, because the Inspection Report makes clear that while the boiler was in service on May 27, 2014, its dependability was questioned to the point that ongoing reliability was fairly characterized as fleeting. Perhaps more importantly, VA Loan qualification requirements did not factor into the information that Mr. [redacted] reported, for he knew nothing whatsoever about the loan, title, and other particulars of Dr. and Mrs. [redacted]’s contemplated purchase of the property.
Upon learning, during his post-inspection visit to the house on September 4, 2014, that the gas to the property was turned off when Dr. and Mrs. [redacted] moved into the house, Mr. [redacted] speculated that the boiler had, for all intents and purposes, been administered its last rites the minute the sellers shut down the utilities. Based on what he had observed on May 27, 2014, he was not surprised to hear that the system was declared kaput when the gas company technician came out to the property and attempted to fire it back up, because whatever amount of life remained in the boiler when he was at the house three months earlier, all bets were off when the steady pressure of water and gas to the system stopped and the aged heating elements were later subjected to uneven bursts of pressure when the water and gas flows were reintroduced.
In review of the paperwork that Dr. [redacted] emailed to me on February 18 and February 24, I note that the signed estimate and proposal from Sears Home Improvement Products dated July 16, 2014 provides for installation of a [redacted] 70,000 BTU Water Boiler system with new gas valve, new expansion tank, new chimney liner, water heater upgrade to a B-Vent, and a 7-Year Master Protection Agreement at a total cost of $10,244.25. The HVAC Start-Up & Completion Form from Sears evidences satisfactory completion of the installation on July 31, 2014.
Dr. [redacted] first alerted U.S. Inspect to his concerns about the general home inspection on August 6, 2014, and when Ms. A[redacted] spoke to him on September 24, 2014, she explained that there was no basis for U.S. Inspect to provide financial assistance in connection with the boiler system since the [redacted]s had failed to notify U.S. Inspect in advance of having the boiler replaced. The opportunity to revisit the property to evaluate and respond to the concerns about the boiler denied, it was completely unreasonable for Dr. [redacted] and Lieutenant [redacted] to take the position that U.S. Inspect should reimburse the [redacted]s in the amount of $10,244.25. And as for the statement Lieutenant [redacted] made in his letter dated December 5, 2014 that Dr. [redacted] “had the boiler replaced because it posed an immediate danger to himself and his family, and he did not receive a response from your organization after he filed his complaint,” the timeline I have related proves otherwise on both counts, unless the [redacted]s had immediate plans to utilize the boiler system during the dog days of summer.Having given all of the above-mentioned points careful consideration, and recognizing that the essence of compromise is reaching an outcome the both parties find acceptable, even if they do so grudgingly, U.S. Inspect is willing to extend a definitive settlement offer that will provide Dr. and Mrs. [redacted] with a measure of financial assistance and resolve the matter without delay. To that end, U.S. Inspect is prepared to issue a settlement payout in the total amount of $4,619.75, subject to our receipt of the attached General Release of All Claims, which we require in order to process settlement payouts. A settlement check in the amount of $4,619.75, which amount reflects the $1,410 offered in my letter to Dr. [redacted] dated January 19, 2015 and an additional $3,209.75 to cover one-third of the cost to install the boiler system with new gas valve, new expansion tank, new chimney liner, and water heater upgrade to a B-Vent (sans the 7-Year Master Protection Agreement), will be mailed to Dr. [redacted] without delay upon my receipt of the signed and notarized General Release of All Claims, which may be mailed to my attention or faxed directly to me at 703.2913.1613. As for the remaining two-thirds of the costs associated with the installation of the new boiler, our view is that nothing is standing in the way of the [redacted]s turning their attention to themselves, their agent, and possibly even the sellers for an apportionment of responsibility relating to their purchase of the house.
In bringing this response letter to a close Mr. [redacted], I want to make clear that the offer extended herein is for settlement purposes only, and that the willingness of U.S. Inspect to resolve this matter in a manner generous to the [redacted]s does not represent any admission of fault or liability, or otherwise compromise the rights of U.S. Inspect. Beyond that, I want to make clear that our offer to settle the matter as set forth herein shall remain open through the close of business on April 15, 2015; if I do not receive the signed and notarized General Release of All Claims by April 15, I will conclude that the offer was rejected by Dr. and Mrs. [redacted], and U.S. Inspect will consider the matter closed.I trust you will for[redacted] this response letter and the General Release of All Claims to Dr. [redacted] so that he may be advised that U.S. Inspect is prepared to resolve this matter as outlined above. Beyond that, I will simply tell you that I appreciate the efforts of the Revdex.com to facilitate a satisfactory resolution of this complaint and do hope Dr. and Mrs. [redacted] will look favorably upon our offer, which I believe is in keeping with our commitment to customer service and satisfies all of the professional and legal obligations of U.S. Inspect. If you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be reached by telephone at ###-###-#### or by email at [redacted].Respectfully yours,Edward E. H**, III Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

To Whom It May Concern,
On August 10, 2015, US Inspect's Central Region Vice President (with oversight for the Indianapolis market) made contact with [redacted] to address her concerns.  A lengthy discussion took place, which included [redacted] recapping the chain of events...

which led to her complaint.  During the call,  a sincere apology was offered by our company and accepted by [redacted].  It was explained to her that internal process review and improvement were underway to ensure this situation does not occur in the future.  
At this time, we consider the matter closed on amicable terms in light of [redacted]' request for a return phone call and apology.
Sincerely,
US Inspect

February 3, 2015BY EMAILMr. [redacted] Trade Practice Consultant Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10" Floor Washington, D.C. 20005-3404 Email: [redacted]Re: Complaint ID [redacted] – [redacted], Silver Spring, MD 20904Dear Mr....

[redacted]:Reference is made to the complaint [redacted] has lodged against U.S. Inspect with the Revdex.com in connection with home inspection services conducted on May 27, 2014 at the above-referenced property address.Please find attached to the email to which this letter is attached an email I sent to Mr. [redacted] on Monday, January 12, 2015 and an email I sent to Mr. [redacted] on Monday, January 19, 2015. You will see attached to the email dated January 19, 2015 the U.S. Inspect response to the concerns that Mr. [redacted] communicated. The emails apparently did not find their way to the email address for Mr. [redacted] that Mr. [redacted]’s legal representative, Lieutenant [redacted], provided to U.S. Inspect in his letter dated December 5, 2014. I trust you will for[redacted] the U.S. Inspect response to Mr. [redacted].I appreciate the efforts of the Revdex.com to facilitate a satisfactory resolution of this complaint and can be reached directly at ###-###-#### or by email at [redacted] should you have any questions.Respectfully yours,Edward E. H**, III Vice President, General Counsel & SecretaryAttachments: As Stated