United Inspection Consultants

Misses more defects than he finds. Years after moving in, I am still repairing, not renovating, and will sell it in better shape than I bought it. If he only gave me a complete picture, I wouldnt have paid for a 10% purchasing agreement. It was an expensive mistake no thanks to him. All he cares about is square feet.

Misses more defects than he finds. Years after moving in, I am still repairing, not renovating, and will sell it in better shape than I bought it. If he only gave me a complete picture, I wouldnt have paid for a 10% purchasing agreement. It was an expensive mistake no thanks to him. All he cares about is square feet.

Review: United Inspection Consultants performed an inspection at my house (at the request of a potential buyer) including air quality testing and their results indicated high level of mold. They charged me $200.00 to get a copy of the report which indicated I had to destroy the lower level of my house and remove all the attic material. After we had our house tested by a reputable environmental assessment company, results indicated that there was no mold in our house. Inspection companies are not experts in testing as I now have learned.Desired Settlement: I have paid over $1000.00 to have my house tested and I would like United Inspection Consultants to pay for the cost of testing which is minimal based on the lost of selling the house and aggravation they have caused.

Business

Response:

[redacted] said in her complaint: "They charged me $200 to get a copy of the report which indicated I had to destroy the lower level of my house and remove all the attic material."

This is not accurate. My client, the potential buyers, paid United [redacted]) to perform a swab and air tests after it was evident that there was visible mold in the attic and there were conditions conducive to mold growth in the house. We always offer our clients a Mold Remediation Specification that they can give to mold remediation contractors to bid on. They asked if I would be willing to write it for [redacted]. [redacted] called and asked us to write the remediation specification for her. My fee is was $200 for that service and the 7 page specification document that was written specifically for her house.

[redacted] said in her complaint: "After we had our house tested by a reputable environmental assessment company, results indicated that there was no mold in our house. Inspection companies are not experts in testing as I now have learned."

I don't know what was tested or where the test were taken by the "reputable environmental assessment company". [redacted] has never approached UIC with questions about the remediation spec or about her dissatisfaction with our work. We would have been professionally responsive and helpful. We would have done anything with reason that would have satisfied her. She is correct inspection companies are not experts in testing. UIC are consultants that do home inspections and more. UIC been performing residential and commercial inspections, consulting and problem solving since 1996. The inspector that did this inspection is an ACAC Certified Microbial Consultant [redacted]. He has two engineering degrees and teaches mold personification courses.

I think [redacted] is angry because our clients did not buy her house.

Mold was found on the swabs taken from the attic and in the air samples collected in the basement and the lower level.

This is from the EMSL Analytically Lab report on the Swab from the attic:

Test Report: Microscopic Examination of Fungal Spores, Fungal Structures, Hyphae, and Other Particulates from Swab Samples ([redacted])

Business

Response:

Dear Mid-Hudson Dispute Services Mediator,

I received your letter dated October **, 201 3 informing us that our customer [redacted]. [redacted]'s complaint regarding case ID#[redacted] has not been resolves

The only service [redacted]. [redacted] paid United Inspection Consultants (UIC) for and received is a written mold remediating plan for her house at [redacted] The plan was written on July **, 2013. It was emailed

to her on July **, 2013 with a request for a deliver and read receipt.

Her complaint is about a service I provided for our clients the potential buyers of her [redacted], [redacted] house at 12.

We are sorry to learn that she thought she needed a second opinion for which she spent $1,000 for. The second opinion was for the air and swab lab test results and report that were ordered and paid for by her potential buyers.

After responding to your initial letter to us dated September **, 2013 she is still unsatisfied

NOTE: All the text in this type font was cut a pasted from your letter. Typing and grammatical errors were not corrected. No text was changed in any way.

In her complaint to you [redacted]. [redacted] stated:

"Following Is Information I received from my environmental testing engineer regarding the attic resort: In the attic we found no presence of mold spores In the sample. since we do not know exactly where United Inspection collected the sample from It Is difficult to compare our findings as the sample location can be quite subjective. With that said we would rely on our visual Impression of the attic as well as other building related Information. We did visually observed what we thought could be mold but ii was confirmed NOT to be mold growth with the sample analysis (maybe United Inspections tested something else in the attic?).""

See photo # 1, the green, gray and black deposits on the wood rafters and roof deck, in the attic over the bedroom, are what we thought was mold. These are deposits that in the past have been known to be mold however only a test by a certified laboratory can determine if it is mold.

So our attic swab sample was taken from the wood surface in this picture

See attachment "A" It is a copy of EMSL Analytical Test Report for lab sample [redacted] which is the swab sample

collected in the attic over the bedroom.

See attachment "B" It is a copy of EMSL Analytical "Surface Contamination ASSESSMENT Report for lab sample [redacted] which is the swab sample collected in the attic over the bedroom.

With regards to attic ventilation [redacted]. [redacted] also stated in her complaint to you:

We determined that the attic building material were very dry and RH and temperature suggested good ventilation so we feel the attic is okay."

Her expert's way of determining if the attic has adequate ventilation is NOT based on an industry standard criterion. It is based on RH (relative humidity) and an opinion. The Federal Housing Administration and most state and local building codes recommend a minimum of one square foot (144 sq in) of ventilation per 300 square feet attic floor space. Bear in mind that this is a minimum recommendation.

The attic over the bedrooms in [redacted]. [redacted]'s house has zero ventilation; see photos 2, through 7. There is no attic ventilation in any of the photos. For you information there is a second attic over the living room, dining room and kitchen areas. There is no access to this attic. There is also no ventilation in this attic either.

The whole house attic fan mounted in the rear end wall of the attic is not attic ventilation. It has moveable louvers on it that are closed when the fan is not running.

See photo# 7.

On the day of the inspection July *, 2013, It was hot and very humid. All of July was hot and humid. [redacted] had the whole house attic fan running and the through the wall air conditioner in the dining room on with all of the doors and windows closed. There is a louver vent in the ceiling of the bedroom level foyer, See photo # 4. The louvers are supposed to be open when the whole house attic fan is on. They were closed at the time of the inspection. The louver vent was not visible in the attic. It was covered with insulation. So it was blocked. [redacted] also had the through the wall air conditioner in the dining room on. See photo # 10 & 11.

Under these conditions the whole house attic fan was drawing hot humid air from outdoors through every crack in house, the basement lower level and the attic. It was even drawing hot humid air through the wood burning stove

in the living room. Water had condensed on the wood burning stove hearth extension, see photo # 8 & 9.

A whole house attic fan is sized to remove air from the whole house. Its intended purpose is to replace hot indoor air with cooler air drawn from outdoors when the air conditioning is not on. When asked why the fan was on he stated that a friend said he should do so.

In her complaint to you [redacted]. [redacted] also stated:

With that said, you have but undo pressure on us which has caused us to spend dollars to find out that your report was not totally accurate."

[redacted]. [redacted] may have felt pressured in the negotiations with the potential buyers. We did not put any pressure on her in any way. In our report to the potential buyers we recommended that a remediation plan be written. They asked UIC if we wou ld be able to write the remediation plan for [redacted]. [redacted]. We said we could do that.

In her complaint to you [redacted]. [redacted] also stated:

"In addition, your Inspector send the following email to me which In turn the buyers apologized because I never said to anyone that I was considering using heat to kill mold. Your Inspector has over stepped his boundary. I was appalled by this email. Was he trying to be helpful or really looking to make money by recommending 3 vendors to perform his remediation plan.."

"Email from Inspector'' The opening paragraph of the email slates

I was talking with [redacted], [redacted]'s, you home buyer, father. He said you may be considering using a company that claims to kill mold with heat. I did some research on the Internet and found no scientific papers on the subject. I did find an article that says It Is a scam, see below."

We were being professional in letting both our clients in the transaction know what is known about using heat to kill mold.

We were trying to be helpful by giving more information to both of parties.

In her complaint to you [redacted]. [redacted] stated; "I was appalled by this email. Was he trying to be helpful or really

looking to make money by recommending 3 vendors to perform his remediation plan."

The potential buyers asked us at the end of the home inspection if we could recommend mold remediation companies. We said yes and we would include them in the mold remediation plan if and when we write for them.

[redacted]. [redacted] accusation is defamatory. We do not accept money from anyone involved in the real estate transaction i.e. vendor, contract realtor, realtors, attorneys, lenders, etc. The only money we receive is from om·clients for services rendered. To do otherwise is against Title 19 NYCRR (New York Codes, of Rules and Regulations) Subparts 197-4 & 197-5 Standards of Practice, and Code of Ethics and Regulations for Home Inspectors.

In summary, the supporting a EMSL Laboratory Inc Lab test reports, our technical statement and photographs are proof that the mold testing and test report we did for [redacted]. [redacted]'s potential buyers was accurate and professional. Quite to the contrary, to [redacted]. [redacted]'s defamatory statement we have demonstrated that we were professional, competent and honest in om·dealings with her and her potential buyers. As a result, we are not responsible for any of the costs that [redacted]. [redacted] for a second opinion. We are confident in the thoroughness of our reports, professionalism and the technical

competency of our work and report and are fully prepared to defend ourselves against your defamatory accusation and unwanted complaint.

After receiving the initial letter of complaint we contacted our clients, the potential buyers, to ask them why they did not buy the house. They said they felt that [redacted] & [redacted]. [redacted] were less than honest with them. Our standard procedure at the beginning of our inspections is to ask the homeowner if they have ever had any water intrusion events in the house, either from the outside or inside, like a broken pipe. [redacted] response was "no". We then asked - "not even during recent hurricanes" and he said "no never". We always ask our questions of the homeowner with our client present. Our client said the straw the broke the camel back was an email [redacted]. [redacted]'s agent copied them (it may have been their agent) in error. In that email [redacted]. [redacted] stated that she had a flood in the house two years ago.

See Attachment 'C" which is a copy of [redacted]. [redacted]'s email in which she made that statement.

Sincerely

Consumer

Response:

At this time, I have not been contacted by United inspection consultants regarding complaint ID [redacted].

Sincerely,