U.S. Inspect Group Reviews (%countItem)
U.S. Inspect Group Rating
Address: 14501 George Carter Way Ste 110, Chantilly, Virginia, United States, 20151-1788
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Fax: |
+1 (703) 293-1600 +1 (703) 293-1613 |
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for U.S. Inspect Group
Add new contacts
I have been performing home inspections for US Inspect for 10 years. I performed an inspection in October 2018. I have not been paid for the inspection as of today. I was notified in December 2018 that the company was being aquired and all past due payments will be resolved after 1st of year 2019. Here are a few of the emails.
Happy Holidays.
I wanted to give you an update on US Inspect past due.
The company is being acquired the first of the year and we are transitioning to a new accounting software. Once the transition takes place, we will be prioritizing a payment schedule to rectify your past due.
Thank you for your patience and have a wonderful New Year.
Best,
Project Specialist, Order Management
US Inspect
Hi Mark,
Thanks for reaching out. We got word yesterday that the acquisition has been finalized and they are working to switch our bank accounts and etc. over. We are expecting a payment schedule soon from the owners to rectify past due so we expect this to be resolved very soon.
Best,
Project Specialist, Order Management
US Inspect
This is the last email I received from them.
Please be informed US Inspect entered into an asset sale with a third party company which culminated on January 9, 2019.
It is unlikely this invoice will be satisfied. Perhaps there may be future business dealings between your company and the new one.
Thank you for your attention.
This company should be held accountable and all past due amounts should be paid to all home inspectors!!
Mark W
As a 12 year vendor with the company, most of the experience was positive and profitable for both of us. If they would face me in good faith with a reasonable offer, it might be possible to rebuild the relationship over time. The current approach is not conducive to a long term relationship with newco.
US Inspect currently owes me over $2600. Per contact at the company, they have been acquired by a vulture capital firm, changed the corporate structure & name slightly. The story is that the acquirer is putting capital in and life will be better if accounting ever gets caught up on payables. I received an offer of about 40% of the amount they owe me from the newco saying the offer is to settle debt from oldco and wanting me to sign a full release (not seen). I declined the offer and sent them back to the counting table about 2 weeks ago. No additional contact has been made to me by the company. My current plan is to file mechanics liens against all properties that I did inspections for as a contractor for US Inspect. I am in the process of making courtesy calls to the relo companies that hired US Inspect.
We have been doing inspections for US Inspect for many years, and yes, it has always taken multiple phone calls and months to get paid for the work. We completed an inspection for them on October 3, 2018 and still have not seen payment. No one (from management or on down) is returning phone calls or emails. We have tried contacting them at least 30 or more times. If they are being acquired by another company as is mentioned below, some sort of communication should be made to their vendors who have not been paid. This is a very bad way to do business.
I had been doing inspections for US Inspect for 2 years and have always had trouble getting paid. They currently owe me over $3,000 and I have not been paid for 3 months. They recently told me that they had been bought out by another company and that they are not paying for inspections that I did for one of the clients of the old company.
The company is currently looking into this matter and is working on addressing the issue.
US Inspect is in the process of being acquired by an investment company and once the acquisition is finalized; the new entity will create a payment schedule for all past due. We appreciate your patience and will get you a better timeline once the schedule is worked out.
We performed an inspection in July 2018 and have still not received our payment. We have sent numerous emails and called 20-30 times leaving many voicemails without getting any response.
Inspectors; Do not take on any business from this company!!
The company is currently looking into the complaint and is working on ratifying this matter.
We did several structural inspections (one was an emergency) back in July and August. Accounting Department is never available or the voice mail is full. We have not been paid and there is no way to call the company to ask for payment. We will ask for our payment upfront before we do anymore work for this company. Really poor business practices.
Sue M.
Accounting has been notifying and is working on rectifying this matter.
I am the seller of a home that US Inspect inspected on 11/20/2018. I was asked not to be present for the inspection by the real estate listing and buyer's agents so I left town early for the Thanksgiving holiday. On 11/23/2018 a representative of US Inspect returned to my home to retrieve a radon test kit while I was still away for Thanksgiving. When I returned to my home after Thanksgiving I found that either the US Inspect inspector or the person retrieving the radon test kit had damaged a bi-fold door in the basement bathroom by taking away the roller that keeps the door in the track.
I contacted US Inspect to complain and their Director of Residential Claims denied any responsibility and refused to take any action to correct the problem.
When you trust an inspection company with unfettered access to your home the expectation is that they will treat it with respect and not cause damage.
Residential Claims Department spoke with both inspectors who accessed the seller's home and they both adamantly denied causing any damage to the basement bathroom door. It is unclear what caused the damage to the door and there is no evidence that either of the inspectors is responsible for it. Our company denies any liability or responsibility to the property damage presented by the seller.
[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 as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The door in question was undamaged before US Inspect conducted their inspection. Their personnel were the only individuals that had access to my house until I returned home to find the door damaged. There is no explanation for the damage to the door other than one the US Inspect employees are responsible and will not now admit it.
It speaks volumes that US Inspect from a corporate viewpoint refuses to do the right thing and appears unconcerned about how this type of conduct adversely impacts their reputation.
Regards
Our firm performed an inspection and report for US Inspect in February 2018 and our invoice has not been paid. Despite many attempts to reach someone at US Inspect, our invoice remains outstanding and none of our phone calls or emails have been returned.
Our records show that the payment was made to the vendor which should resolve this matter.
The Inspector put his foot through my home's ceiling and ruined the ceiling, the light and sprayed our wardrobe with drywall and insulation. They denied the claim that included the contractor that did the repairs and my portion dealing with the clean up and restoration of our wardrobe.
This claim was never denied. In fact, we offered to pay for the damages in a timely manner. The customer provided us with a repair estimate for the ceiling along with an invoice for the dry cleaning for a total of $771.56. We offered to pay this amount in exchange for a release of all claims. The customer claims that she did 17 loads of laundry at a cost $170 and loss of earnings. Neither the laundry or the loss of earnings are supported, therefore they were not considered.
Our offer is on the table and we hope the customer will reconsider it.
UPDATE: I filed suit against US Inspect and won a judgement against them in January 2019. To date they have not made any attempt to pay the judgement.
I am filing a complaint against US inspect for breaching the contract. Major and obvious issues with plumbing was never caught/ reported with my new house inspection. US inspect didn't deliver
I was referred by my realtor to the company. Daniel M did the inspection while I was out of state getting ready for my move to Philadelphia. I put my faith in a company that knows nothing about basic skills to inspect a property. On the day I saw the property for the first time, I saw a flooded drain in the backyard way before the inspection and pointed it out to my realtor and realtor said it was leafs . That backyard drain connects with a PVC in the basement that goes out to the street to drain in Philadelphia sewer system. The smell of mold was awful that day . Inspection was done July 31st. I did the walk through on Sept 10th, and the smell of the mold was even worse, and the drain was still clogged / flooded , realtor still insisted it was leafs. It had been raining the entire season, I don't know how the inspector didn't see the flooded drain or smelled the awful mold. You must be blind to miss something as obvious as that, unless you didn't inspect that part of the house at all, or didn't want to get your hands dirty to check the drain.
closing didn't happen till Sept 14 and I walked to the backyard, and sure enough the drain still clogged , and the entire concrete of backyard is green / molding / covered with mosquitos .
It turns out that the drain had been entirely clogged with concrete debris since the construction work of the house back in 2016. I had to get a general contractor, cut through the wall in the basement to get to the trap in the basement.
If you are paying money to professional to catch obvious flaws like that, and they can't catch them , then what are they good for.
I needed up with $1200 repairs, but I am in the process of recouping the all the costs associated with the repair via legal procedures.
The buyer reported a clogged backyard drain and a leaking PVC drain pipe. Upon receipt of the claim, the inspector returned to the property to assess the buyer's concerns.
US Inspect learned that the buyer hired a non professional to unclog the drain which may have contributed to the leak from the PVC drain pipe.
During the inspection of July 31, 2018, there was no evidence of clogged drain in the backyard. By his own admission, the buyer never attended the inspection. Therefore, he is not in a position to assume the condition of the drain during the July inspection. On the other hand, the inspector completed a thorough inspection of the home including the backyard and found no evidence of a defect to the drain
In addition, the inspection is visual and non-invasive in nature and does not include inserting cameras in drains or drain lines. US Inspect does not open up walls to check the condition of the plumbing. However, the home was scanned with infrared camera and the leak from the drain line was not present.
The mold smell that the buyer has referenced was not present at the time of the inspection. In fact, mold is specifically excluded from the general home inspection which states:
Environmental Hazards. Our Home Inspection services do not encompass testing, evaluation orinvestigation into: (i) the possible presence of biological contaminants (e.g., molds, fungi, pollen, petdander, insect waste, etc.), radon gas, carbon monoxide, lead-based paint, asbestos, urea-formaldehyde,electro-magnetic radiation, toxic wastes or any other environmental hazards or conditions or potentiallyharmful substances; (ii) indoor or outdoor air quality; (iii) water treatment/purification systems, well systemsor the quality of the water supply; (iv) the condition or suitability of septic or other on-site waste systems; (v)the possible presence, condition or suitability of underground storage tanks; (vi) geotechnical conditions,soil conditions or types, site drainage, sinkholes or the propensity or future potential for foundation orbelow grade water penetration; (vii) geological hazards such as floods, erosion, earthquakes, landslides,mudslides, and volcanoes; (viii) local pollution issues relating to smog, landfills, industrial waste products,groundwater contamination, noise and other environmental concerns; or (ix) the possible presence of wooddestroying insects, organisms or pests (termites, ants, fungus, dry rot, rodents, bats, birds, etc.) that cancause damage to a dwelling or structure.
Inspection findings are limited in scope to what is visible and apparent at the time of the inspection. The condition of the home has changed since the time of the home inspection and none of the concerns expressed by the buyers was evident during the general home inspection of July 31, 2018.
There is no recourse through US Inspect for the repairs outlined in the customer's complaint or the return of fees.
We reiterate our position that even if the drain showed evidence of backup at the time of the walkthrough, the condition was different at the time of the general home inspection. There was no evidence of the drain being clogged at the time of the inspection.
Regardless of the neighbor's statement, at the time of the general home inspection, the backyard was dry as evidenced by the photos in the inspection report. Findings are limited in scope to what is visible and apparent at the time of the inspection. The inspector could not have predicted that the drain would back up and flood the backyard.
Running water into a drain to test its functionality is far beyond the scope of the general home inspection. Home inspectors are not required to run water into drains.
The buyer is making a false comparison between inspecting sinks/tubs and drains. Indeed the inspector runs water in the sinks and bathtubs to check the function of the drain line and verify if there are any leaks. However, this is completely different from filling a drain with water to test whether it would absorb it. What the buyer is proposing goes completely against the standards of home inspection and any safe and sound measure.
It is very common for green spots to develop around the exterior of a drain. The presence of such color is by no means evidence of a clogged drain. Infrared camera is used to detect moisture and has nothing to do with detecting clogged drain. The technology allows moisture detection and can assist in finding leaking pipes.
As to the concrete in the plumbing system, our company does not open up the supply or drain pipes to look inside them and we do not insert cameras inside the pipes. The inspection is visual and is not meant to be exhaustive in nature.
We suggest that the buyer reviews the service agreement and familiarize himself with the scope and limitations of home inspection.
It is unfortunate that the buyer is facing these issues but we believe that the inspection was done properly and measures up to national and state standards of home inspection. The buyer repeatedly advised that he noticed these issues in the walkthrough which should have given him the opportunity to negotiate them with the seller.
[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 as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
I reiterate my position , you failed 100% of delivering service I hired you for, I am entitled for all the damages associated with the fraudulent inspection service "$1200". You only caught burned out light bulb, and couldn't even figure out how to turn on the water faucet at the roof, you inspector thought it was broken, but apparently it was turned off from the main control in the utility closet. " Page 39" on inspection report / "***.PDF".... my 4 years old nephew could have figured that out; that just shows you the quality of inspectors you hire, and the utter failure. Do you think I payed you $540 to catch the burned out light bulbs ? I could have done that myself. you need to look at the quality of inspectors you are sending out / hiring .
If an inspector can't figure out how to turn on a water faucet from the utility closet and puts it as a broken faucet, then you seriously have no quality. this just shows you the utter failure of your company.... what a joke...
going back to my main issue, you failed to catch an outstanding / obvious issue with the plumbing system. How could you miss out on solid concrete on in the plumbing system...solid concrete ... please see attachment
Regards
My husband and I had a house inspected by US Inspect Area Manager Bob G out of Denver, CO prior to moving into it in the fall of 2017. In his report, he stated the roof had "no issues",the flashing had "no issues" and that it had a life span of 12-16 years left. G documented in his report that he did not even get on the roof to inspect it, rather just looked at it from the ground with binoculars. We are not sure why, it was a partly sunny, 55 degree day. Shortly after we moved into this house, we found another one we liked better, moved into it and put the first house up for sale. With the first offer we accepted, the result of their inspection of the roof showed that it was in seriously bad shape and they were asking us for a new roof (!) as part of the purchase. We were stunned, given the inspection report we had for our own purchase of that house. While we were having a roofer come out to provide us with an objective assessment, we lost those buyers. We had a second set of buyers - same issue. Their inspection showed the same thing and they requested a new roof as part of the purchase agreement. The roofer we enlisted verified this information. He stated that it was in very bad shape and he would not even consider partial repairs and guarantee for a short time; it needed to be replaced. We replaced the roof and it cost us $7410. Our realtor Mark Brautigam who uses G told us to contact US Inspect because they have Error and Omissions Insurance for this type of issue. I did contact them and communicated with Moe F, their Director of Residential Claims. He ignored me any time I brought up the E & O insurance, rather said that he would be handling this. At one point he said that we were past the 100 day guarantee which he then emailed me a copy of. We never received this from G with other US Inspect materials nor ever told about it. F then tried to say that the damaged roof was due to hail damage that occurred after we had it inspected which is ludicrous.
This claim was erroneously filed in the Revdex.com DC area. The inspection was completed in Colorado and it should be moved to the proper area.
US Inspect performed 2 home inspections for the buyer and the home inspection with the roof issue was completed on October 3, 2017. The buyer presented the complaint on January 18, 2017 which is 3.5 months post inspection.
The inspector noted on the inspection report that during the roof inspection, he walked accessible areas while other areas were viewed from ground with binoculars and viewed from a window. The inspector stated on the report that some areas are inaccessible and are not visible due to height, design and materials. Therefore, the inspection is limited.
US Inspect considers the inspectors’ safety a top priority and inspectors use their discretion regarding what is considered dangerous or unsafe.
According to the service agreement:
Physical Limitations. Our home inspection is physically limited to areas which are readily accessible, available for inspection, and are not safety risks. Our Inspectors have absolute discretion regarding whether or not to: (i) enter any area or perform any procedure which is, in the opinion of the Inspector, unsafe and likely to be dangerous to the Inspector or other persons, or (ii) enter any area or perform any procedure which will, in the opinion of the Inspector, likely damage the property or its systems or components.
The inspector reported what was visible and apparent at the time of the inspection and reflected it on the report. The inspection report communicates the limitation of the roof inspection and specifically stated that certain areas of the roof were not accessible to the inspector:
Some areas are inaccessible and/or not visible due to height, design and materials. Therefore, the inspection is limited.
The hail damage outlined in the customer’s complaint was neither visible nor apparent at the time of the home inspection of October 3, 2017. US Inspect has responded to the buyer’s inquiry in a professional and timely manner. The 100 Day Guarantee is listed on the company’s website and was fully accessible to the client. The Guarantee does not cover hail damage claims.
US Inspect denies any oversight or error during the home inspection.
[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 as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: the company continues to offer rhetoric they have created to mask the real problem here - a negligent inspection by one of their Area Managers. At the risk of being elementary and for one final time I present the facts: in regard to the inspection we received at the date and place noted previously, the inspector totally missed noting/seeing the complete disrepair of the 16 year old roof - from years of wear, not just hail damage as the company keeps pointing to. He chose not to use a ladder on the inspection of the first house which would have allowed him to accurately assess it. At the inspection of the second house, he did use a ladder? That seems to be an inconsistent practice, which ultimately cost us $7400 for a roof the sellers would have paid for. For the second inspection the company did not do us a favor as they indicated by reimbursing us a small amount for the repairs we incurred post-inspection. It was proper and what their representative did. As to the 100 day guarantee which was never told to us, presented to us or alluded to for either inspection, if the company stood behind the work of their Area Managers, that guarantee would ultimately be irrelevant and unnecessary, wouldn't it? We have bought and sold several houses during our lives but never knew, until our experience with U.S. Inspect that we hade to have an inspection of our inspection! Again, the guarantee of their work and customer satisfaction in large print on their brochure seems to be just that, icing with no cake. We are out the cost of a new roof due to a faulty inspection by US Inspect.
Regards
We reiterate our position that the roof inspection was limited which was clearly stated on the inspection report. Inspectors will use their judgment to determine whether a roof is safe or accessible for walking.
In the case of the client's inspection, the inspector noted the limitation of the roof inspection.
We don't see the merits of comparing the inspection of both homes as they are two completely two different inspections.
The inspector noted that he walked certain areas of the roof and viewed other areas using binoculars. The area where the roof shows some damage was not accessible for the inspector due to the outlined limitations.
The inspector reports on the clear and visible conditions of the accessible components as they exist at the time of the inspection. If part of the component is not accessible, as it is in a certain area in the roof, it cannot be inspected and it gets noted on the report.
US Inspect denies any oversight or error for the home inspection and it is our position that the inspection report accurately communicates the visible and apparent condition of the accessible components as they exist at the time of the inspection.
I contacted the post inspection phone number, and they indicated I would be contacted that day regarding my concerns. I have not been contacted. My real estate agent also reached out regarding the situation prior to this.
At this point, I no longer trust this inspector, and am requesting a different inspector come out to perform the inspection per standards indicated on the website and sample report at minimum.
Inspector showed up very late.
Report says patio not present, yet there is a backyard with concrete patio.
Didn't see the inspector closely look at the first floor windows, one of which has excessive scraping on the glass via vandalism which may not be reportable, yet the windows should likely be closely inspected.
Countertops excessively worn in my opinion as there are around 10 punctures in the surface to the particle board material underneath; some the size of nickel and dime size, along with other excessive wear.
Washer and Dryer not inspected per report with no reasoning.
Wondering where the main water valves are per unit or if only one main water value per building is to be specified.
Large section of wall stripping missing in 1st floor bath room where obvious water damage had occurred via ceiling at minimum; not noted in report to my understanding along with other significant items.
No infrared camera utilized even though indicated it would be per inspection report. It was indicated this property had a previous roof leak. I spoke with someone on the phone and chose this option partially because my understanding was that the infrared camera would be used.
No temperature gun utilized to my understanding regarding the HVAC system like in the sample report.
Insulation significantly damaged on outside compressor exposing pipe significantly; not in report with other items.
I have pictures of the property taken during the inspection indicating multiple items not included in the report.
I no longer wish to work with the current inspector.
US Inspect acknowledges receipt of the claim and regrets the experience that the buyer has outlined in the complaint. We are honoring the client's request and offered to resolve this matter for return of fees in exchange for a release of all claims. Upon receipt of the signed release, the customer's credit card will be refunded.
Improper home inspection resulted in an oversight of a major health and safety concern. Water heater (present at time of inspection) was illegally installed, resulting in the improper venting of fumes from the unit. This means gas fumes are able to return into the house causing a deadly gas leak and/or possible explosive hazard.
presented a claim in relation to the water heater and US Inspect has promptly revisited his property to assess his concerns. A settlement offer for return of fees was promptly extended in exchange for a release of all claims.
According to the Service Agreement that *** agreed to its terms, US Inspect limits of liability is limited to the return of fees paid:
Limits of Liability/Liquidated Damages. You understand and agree that US Inspect is not an insurer andthat the payment for the Inspection and Inspection Report is based solely on the value of the service provided by US Inspect in the performance of the limited visual inspection and production of the Inspection Report as described herein. You further understand and agree that it is impracticable and extremely difficult to fix actual damages, if any, which may result from a failure to perform such services. Thus, except as expressly delineated under our short-term guarantee, if available, and where permissible under state law, US Inspect’s liability under any theory of liability (e.g., negligence, breach of contract, consumer protection, etc.), with the exception of gross negligence or willful misconduct, shall be limited to the fees paid by you for the inspection services you selected. In states in which “Return of Fee” limitations are expressly prohibited, US Inspect’s liability shall be limited to the lesser of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the purchase price you paid for the Property or the amount provided for under state law.
The limits of liability does not change with the size of dispute or the amount of repairs. US Inspect has fulfilled its duty to promptly assess the client's concerns and offered resolution in accordance with the service agreement.
US Inspect failed to identify a crawlspace that is under my house. Access to piping, electrical work, and gas lines are all under the crawlspace and there is no access to the crawlspace. To gain access I will have to have all of the kitchen appliances and cabinets removed and floor pulled up or have a wall in the basement taken down. If this was identified at inspection it could have been addressed. The builder should not have sealed access to the crawlspace and the inspection should have identified that this area needs to be accessible.
US Inspect performs general home inspection in readily accessible areas and the inspection is non-invasive in nature and does not include removal of any floor or wall coverings. Investigating access to sealed or blocked areas is beyond the scope of the inspection. In addition, inspection is limited to what is visible and apparent at the time of the inspection.
The service agreement clearly outlines these limitations in the following section:
General Exclusions. Our inspectors do not disassemble equipment, dismantle items, move furniture, lift floor coverings, open wall coverings, or disturb items belonging to a Property owner. Our Home Inspection services do not encompass anything that is concealed, underground, or inaccessible for inspection at the time of the inspection. Our Inspectors do not: (i) enter any area or perform any procedure that may damage the Building; (ii) check items hidden behind walls or ceilings (e.g., electrical wiring systems, plumbing systems, insulation, etc.); (iii) check telephone or cable/satellite jacks and connections; (iv) check security systems, fire sprinkler/suppression systems, intercom systems, central vacuum systems, exterior low voltage lighting systems, antennas, remote and radio controls, motion sensing devices, solar systems, specialty HVAC systems, or other non-primary electrical/timing systems; (v) inspect structures detached from the Building; (vi) evaluate cosmetic features such as paint, wall coverings, carpeting, floorings, paneling, lawn and landscaping; or, (vii) inspect common areas. Our Inspectors will not determine if “normal” operating controls such as heating units, thermostats, humidifiers, or switches can be operated by the Property owner as intended.
Limitations and Exclusions. Inspection Findings are limited in scope and based upon the visible and apparent condition of systems and components of the Building as they exist at the time of the inspection. The condition of the Property and Building may change between the time inspection services are conducted and the time a client acquires title to the property, regardless of whether the building is occupied or unoccupied. ASHI Limitations and Exclusions are incorporated herein by reference and are available at www.homeinspector.org/general-limitations-and-exclusions.
US Inspect refutes allegations of error or oversight and contends that the inspection report accurately reflects the visible and apparent condition of components at the time of inspection and that the inspection measures up to prevailing state and national industry standards.
I am rejecting this response because: I did not mention anything about tearing up floor board or anything that you mentioned in your response. My issue is you failed to inform me of the lack of access to the crawl space. As an inspector this is something that you should point out. To piggy back off of your response, if you could not access the space to inspect it that should have been made clear at the time of inspection. If it was made clear, I could have made a proper informed decision about how to proceed.
Regards
The buyer stated in the original complaint that there is no access to the crawlspace and that she will have to remove the kitchen appliances and cabinets and have the floor pulled to gain access. She also stated that the builder has sealed access to the crawlspace.
According to the service agreement:
Physical Limitations: Our home inspection is physically limited to areas which are readily accessible, available for inspection, and are not safety risks.
Clearly, the crawlspace was not accessible and its access was neither visible or apparent as it was sealed per the buyer's own admission. Inspectors are not required to enter crawlspace areas that are not readily accessible.
We don't believe that there was an oversight by US Inspect and that the inspection report reflects what was visible and apparent at the time of the inspection.
In May 2018, we had a *** inspector (Kevin) perform the inspection on our now new home. I wasn't able to be present during the inspection but trusted that he would take care of it adequately for us. Once the inspection was completed, Kevin sent me the inspection report. There was nothing really alarming in it. My dissatisfaction started 2 days after we moved into the new house (June 24). We had a couple of rain storms roll through and I happened to be in our lower garage at the time. I heard a dripping sound and found that rain water was coming into the basement through electrical conduit from the dusk to dawn light outside. It was running into an electrical junction box and running/dripping down the wall onto an electrical outlet. There are rust stains on the wall that make it obvious that this had been happening for quite some time. In Kevin's report, he did point out signs of moisture in that garage. He took photos of a white substance on the ceiling about 20 feet away from this problem. I was not initially alarmed about the white flaking substance and dismissed it. I confirmed that those areas do not leak water at all and that they are likely stains from something else. If Kevin had pointed out this completely different problem of water coming in and soaking electrical items, I most certainly would have had the sellers fix it before the sale. We are talking about a potential life-threatening problem that was missed and should have been easily identifiable by a professional inspector. Continuing on, Kevin was great about everything and told me to file a complaint with ***. I told him I would, and I did with Moe in *** I explained everything to Moe and provided detailed pictures. He came back a couple weeks later and declined our claim. Even with the pictures of the rust stains on the wall and all of the complete and obvious information I provided, he actually made the claim that this was a new problem that started after the inspection!!! I still have the email! I was absolutely dumbfounded by this logic. I spoke to my real estate agents and provided them the same pictures and proof, and they were also dumbfounded. They recommend *** quite a lot so they tried to reason with Moe on my behalf. They explained that my problem was an obvious mistake on the inspector's part and urged Moe to reconsider his position on the matter. He came back and told them the same thing that he told me. They were stunned by this and said they can no longer recommend *** to any of their future clients because of this completely ridiculous logic. In conclusion, I understand that inspectors are human and sometimes things get missed. I'm not upset that the inspector missed the problem, I am upset that *** knows full well that they messed up and based on ridiculous logic are refusing to do what is right. I have loads of pictures, video, and emails regarding this problem. I'd be happy to share them with anyone that is interested.
presented a claim to *** regarding water penetration in the garage.
The report in the initial inspection shows that the inspector identified evidence of water penetration in the garage where he pointed out moisture stains inside the garage door and more importantly he called out signs of moisture entry to the basement garage ceiling.
After receipt of ***'s claim, the inspector went back to the property and concluded that water was entering the junction box in the garage through the conduit.
*** was advised by *** that water penetration in the garage was called out on the inspection report. The rust that he referenced on the garage wall was attributed to the same water penetration already identified on the report. The inspector had no way of knowing that there are multiple sources and causes of water penetration in the garage. According to ***, the problem was noticed after rainstorm which means active water penetration, a condition that was not present at the time of initial inspection. The inspector can only report defects that are visible and apparent as outlined in the service agreement:
Limitations and Exclusions. Inspection Findings are limited in scope and based upon the visible and apparent condition of systems and components of the Building as they exist at the time of the inspection. The condition of the Property and Building may change between the time inspection services are conducted and the time a client acquires title to the property, regardless of whether the building is occupied or unoccupied. ASHI Limitations and Exclusions are incorporated herein by reference and are available at www.homeinspector.org/general-limitations-and-exclusions.
*** identified defects related to water penetration in the garage and it was ***’s responsibility to direct a licensed contractor to evaluate not only the problem but any adjacent, collateral, contiguous or hidden components as outlined in the service agreement that *** signed and agreed to its terms:
Repairs or Further Evaluation. Our Inspectors may recommend the need or possible need to repair, replace or monitor a system or component or to obtain examination and analysis of a system or component by a tradesman or service technician in a designated field of expertise. Clients must engage and instruct any professional, tradesman or service technician who evaluates a system or component for the purpose of preparing a repair/replacement proposal to address the problem, concern and/or issue identified by the Inspector, and any adjacent, collateral or contiguous, intersecting and/or hidden/obstructed systems or components that may require repair, replacement or upgrading. Repairs, replacement, upgrading or maintenance of problems, concerns and/or issues identified by the inspector may be more difficult to correct and/or be more costly than anticipated.
*** contends that there was no oversight or missed items during the inspection and that the issue of the garage water penetration was outlined in the report.
s maintains the same position that during the inspection, the buyer was advised of evidence of moisture in 2 spots in the garage including the garage door and the ceiling. Any other evidence of moisture found in the garage was attributed to the same water penetration that was called out on the report. There was no active water penetration during the time of the inspection to identify the issue of water coming from behind the junction box. Findings are limited in scope to what is visible and apparent at the time of inspection.
Per the service agreement, the buyer had the responsibility to direct a licensed contractor to assess not only the immediate problem area but also adjacent, contiguous, intersecting or hidden components. The junction box where water was coming through is inside the same garage and the same general area where moisture was called out on the report. Had the buyer complied with the service agreement, which he signed and agreed to its terms, and hired a contractor to assess the moisture issue (garage door and garage ceiling), he would not be dealing with this issue. The service agreement reads:
Repairs or Further Evaluation. Our Inspectors may recommend the need or possible need to repair, replace or monitor a system or component or to obtain examination and analysis of a system or component by a tradesman or service technician in a designated field of expertise. Clients must engage and instruct any professional, tradesman or service technician who evaluates a system or component for the purpose of preparing a repair/replacement proposal to address the problem, concern and/or issue identified by the Inspector, and any adjacent, collateral or contiguous, intersecting and/or hidden/obstructed systems or components that may require repair, replacement or upgrading. Repairs, replacement, upgrading or maintenance of problems, concerns and/or issues identified by the inspector may be more difficult to correct and/or be more costly than anticipated.
It is important to note the language in the above paragraph including "repair, replace or monitor a system or component" and "adjacent, collateral, or contiguous, intersecting and/or hidden/obstructed systems" which is comprehensive and detailed enough to address the buyer's concerns.
***'s position has been consistent from the very beginning and we refute any allegations of contradictory statements or actions by the buyer. We have provided the buyer with a detailed explanation of our position and the logic behind it as well as the supporting language from the service agreement.
We continue to maintain the position that there was no oversight by the inspector during the course of the inspection and that the report communicates the visible and apparent condition of components at the the time of inspection.
[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 as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
No amount of legal jargon or fine print on a contract can replace a quality product or service.
Regards
We have worked with US Inspect for eight years but, unfortunately, we have had extreme difficulty collecting payment for our inspection services over the past year. In early spring, we had to stop performing inspections until a seriously delinquent bill was paid. Once it was paid, we were assured that their cash flow problems had been rectified and that all future payments would be made as agreed. That was the last payment they made to us! They owe us $2,700, going back to March, 2018. Most of our phone calls and emails have been ignored. We did receive one response that stated the payment had been made but returned because of an incorrect mailing address in their system . . . one of the many excuses we received during our previous collection efforts. We have no recourse other than to file liens against the individual homeowners who, themselves, are really just victims of US Inspect since, I'm sure, they paid for inspection services at the time they were ordered. We will no longer do business with US Inspect. Question for the Revdex.com . . . we rely on you to give sound advice concerning the business practices of companies - how can US Inspect still have an A+ rating when ALL of the reviews are negative??
We regret any inconvenience that this issue may have caused to your business and we are working on rectifying this matter.
A check for the full balance is being prepared and it is scheduled to be mailed this week via UPS.
We appreciate your patience and notifying us of this issue.
On 03/15/2018, we had US Inspect home inspector Bob E conduct the inspection of the home we ultimately purchased. On 05/04/2018, we moved into the home and began noticing what ended up being at least a dozen issues to include significant water damage, mold, a failure of three major appliances within the first week of living here, failure to note catastrophic leaking from a tub due to poor caulking; many of these items were listed as having no issue on the inspection report. The realization that major things were missed in the inspection was very surprising to us given that very minor items were flagged.
On 05/22/2018, I notified Mr. E about the issue with the bathroom and he advised that it may be either a drain or supply pipe, which was not very informative.
On 06/12/2018, I gave Mr. E the opportunity to revisit the property and he stated that there was nothing wrong with the home. We have had no less than 8 contractors through he home and all of them cited a complete and utter failure of the home inspector to identify obvious issues. Mr. E indicated that he would have US Inspect contact me regarding dispute resolution. Mr. E indicated that someone would contact me.
On 06/20/2018, after not having heard from US Inspect, I contacted Mr. E again and he advised he would have someone from US Inspect contact me.
On 06/25/2018, I received a response from Moe F, Mr. F cited items unrelated to our issues with inspection in response to our dispute and indicated that "US Inspect will take no further action in this matter".
One of the major issues we have in our home is paneling that is rippling due to long-term water damage which was completely missed. We have to have the wall ripped open in order to remediate the mold and Mr. E's advice was to leave it and not open the wall. This was absolutely appalling given the poor condition of the wall and the fact that this wall is in a children's playroom. It was noted immediately by every contractor that we brought to the house, yet missed by Mr. E. Other items that were noted were visible standing water marks in another room that, again, were missed by Mr. E.
The outlay of money to repair the home from issues that should have been flagged during the inspection will likely be on the order of $20,000 in total (we are currently at about $7,000 and are only in the early stages of remediation). We would absolutely not have purchased the home, but for our reliance on Mr. E's assurances and inspection report indicating that there were no major issues with the home.
I would very much like to through each specific item that was missed on the inspection report, but am reticent to include them in this correspondence because we are preparing for the possibility of litigating this claim. I encourage you to contact me so that I can outline all of my issues. I did go through the majority of them with Mr. E when he revisited the property on 06/12/2018 and would like to share the responses I received during our interaction as well.
I am filing this complaint with the Revdex.com as a final attempt to resolve this before pursuing other avenues of resolution.
During the inspection of March 15, 2018, there were no issues with the caulking in the master bathroom tub. When the inspector, Mr. E, returned to the property on June 12, 2018 he found the caulking in the bathroom peeled, which was different from the condition observed in the March inspection.
During the revisit, Mr. E found the drywall ceiling below the master bathroom opened by possibly a contractor to assess the leak. The general home inspection conducted by US Inspect does not involve dismantling or removal of components as outlined in the service agreement:
General Exclusions. U.S Inspect Inspectors do not disassemble equipment, dismantle items, move furniture, lift floor coverings, open wall coverings, or disturb items belonging to a Property owner. General Home Inspection services do not encompass anything that is concealed, underground, or not accessible for inspection at the time of the inspection.
It is our position that the leak from the tub became evident sometime after the home inspection and that during the course of inspection there were no visible signs that such leak was present.
In addition, Mr. E tested the basement panels for moisture during the revisit and no significant readings were found. There were numerous items stored in the basement during the March 15th inspection that blocked the wall.
Also, Mold is not part of the general home inspection and it is unclear if mold was found by Mr. S’ contractors. The service agreement states:
Environmental Conditions and Hazards; Pest Inspections. General Home Inspection services conducted by U.S. Inspect do not encompass testing, evaluation or investigation into: (i) the possible presence of biological contaminants (molds, fungi, pollen, pet dander, insect waste, etc.), radon gas, carbon monoxide, lead-based paint, asbestos, urea-formaldehyde, electro-magnetic radiation, toxic wastes or any other environmental hazards or conditions or potentially harmful substances; (ii) indoor or outdoorair quality; (iii) water treatment/purification systems, well systems or the quality of the water supply; (iv) the condition or suitability of septic or other on-site waste systems; (v) the possible presence, condition or suitability of underground storage tanks; (vi) geotechnical conditions, soil conditions or types, site drainage, sinkholes or the propensity or future potential for foundation or below grade water penetration; (vii) geological hazards such as floods, erosion, earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, and volcanoes; (viii) local pollution issues relating to smog, landfills, industrial waste products, groundwater contamination, noise and other environmental concerns; or (ix) the possible presence of wood destroying insects, organisms or pests (termites, ants, fungus, dry rot, rodents, bats, birds, etc.) that can cause damage to a dwelling or structure. U.S. Inspect can conduct certain environmental related testing services (e.g., Mold Screening Services – Swab / Air-Sampling / etc.; Termite / Pest Inspection Services; Radon testing; Indoor Air Quality testing; etc.) and issue inspection findings for additional fee(s).
During the time of the inspection of March 2018, there was no active water penetration issues found in the basement. However, Mr. S was advised of conditions that are conductive of water penetration issues:
Water Control – Grading
The grading is sloping towards the foundation. This will permit water penetration. Location: Front. Regrade to divert surface water away from the foundation. The grade should be sloped at 1" per foot for up to 6' from the dwelling.
Water Control - Window Well
A window well is needed to allow for proper grading at a foundation opening that is close to the ground. This will help prevent water penetration into the structure. Location: Rear and right side of home. Install a window well as required.
Exterior - Siding
There are gaps in the siding. This permits moisture to enter. Location: Left Side. Repair the siding and repair damage which may be revealed.
Plumbing - Sink
The caulk or grout is deteriorated/missing at the sink. This permits water penetration into the surround areas. Location: Basement bathroom. Regrout and recaulk as needed.
There was no visible standing water marks in any of the rooms during the March 15, 2018 inspection. This is another example of issues that Mr. S is facing that became evident only after the time of the inspection. Mr. S was present during the time of the inspection and we assume that he did a final walkthrough before closing on the house and had these issues been as evident as Mr. S is claiming, he would have pointed them out during the inspection or the walkthrough.
None of the issues outlined in Mr. S’ complaint was visible or apparent during the inspection of March, 2018. According to the service agreement:
Limitations and Exclusions. The Inspection Findings will be limited in scope and based upon the visible and apparent condition of the systems and components of the Building, as they exist at the time of the inspection. Please review carefully the Limitations and Exclusions Notice. If you are not comfortable with the Limitations and Exclusions and wish to have a more extensive and technically oriented inspection conducted at the Property, you should elect the Technical Home Inspection Option that we offer.
We find no evidence of oversight or “misses” as indicated in Mr. S’ complaint. The inspection services conducted by Mr. E measured up to prevailing national and state Standards of Practice within the home inspection industry, and that the inspection report issued accurately communicated the visible and apparent conditions that existed at the residence at the time of the inspection.
US Inspect maintains the same position that the stain in the garage ceiling was not present at the time of the inspection and that the leak started after the inspection.
In addition, there was no evidence of active water penetration in the basement. The basement was dry during the initial inspection and the revisit. However, the buyer was advised that conditions conductive of water penetration were present.
As to the chimney, there was no evidence that it required repointing. The chimney was inspected during the initial inspection and the inspector called out spalled bricks and made recommendations for repairs. If the chimney needed to be repointed as the buyer is alleging, then he would have had the opportunity to have it evaluated by a licensed contractor while addressing the spalled chimney bricks. The service agreement is very clear that the buyer has the responsibility to direct the contractor to evaluate contiguous and adjacent components. Below is the relevant language in the agreement:
Repairs or Further Evaluation. Our Inspectors may recommend the need or possible need to repair, replace or monitor a system or component or to obtain examination and analysis of a system or component by a tradesman or service technician in a designated field of expertise. Clients must engage and instruct any professional, tradesman or service technician who evaluates a system or component for the purpose of preparing a repair/replacement proposal to address the problem, concern and/or issue identified by the Inspector, and any adjacent, collateral or contiguous, intersecting and/or hidden/obstructed systems or components that may require repair, replacement or upgrading. Repairs, replacement, upgrading or maintenance of problems, concerns and/or issues identified by the inspector may be more difficult to correct and/or be more costly than anticipated.
Again, we reiterate our position that there was no oversight by the inspector and we are unable to honor the buyer's request for any refund.
[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 as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
Mr. E’s oversights led to a $545.00 inspection costing us approximately $30,000.00. Mr. E missed obvious signs of water penetration in the basement and when confronted with this a subsequent walk through, Mr. E again maintained there was no sign of moisture. That very same day, we had three contractors in with moisture meters that were shocked and could not believe that we had had an inspection done. In other words, Mr. E assessed the wall as being fine within hours of three other professionals who advised cutting the wall open and remediating for mold. Mr. E stated that unless you could push your finger through the wall, it was fine. I do not believe this is an appropriate standard by which to judge water penetration or the existence of mold.
There was a visible water stain in the garage. US Inspect states that there was no such stain; we have a photograph. Unfortunately for all of us, saying there was no stain there does not make it so.
The chimney is structurally unsound and is neither safe nor usable. Mr. E mentioned that there was only an issue of spalling brick, minimizing the severity of it. Two contractors we had look at the chimney were again in utter disbelief that we had had an inspection as they indicated that anyone should have noticed this; the chimney visibly sways.
I maintain that Mr. E failed to reasonable skill and care of an individual conducting home inspections. I will not make this message longer by discussing the litany of oversights from the inspection, improper techniques for assessing moisture, or misleading statements made in response to our claims as I have already done so in previous replies.
Our justifiable reliance on Mr. E’s statement that he had never seen a home inspection so clean and his skill in conducting the inspection led us to spend approximately $30,000.00 to bring the home to the condition we were led to believe it was in when we purchased it. US Inspect’s continued statements that there was no oversight does not make it so. US Inspect’s statements that there is no evidence is also factually inaccurate, there are photographs and a rather large number of contractors who have been to the house and have made statements supporting our claim. I would argue that there is absolutely no evidence to support the proposition that Mr. E was not negligent in conducting an inspection of the property.
Mr. F, US Inspect Residential Claims Services Director, offered a refund to us in the amount of $545.00, the price we paid for the inspection. This offer was presented on 08/17/2018, approximately two months since the initial complaint was sent to US Inspect. Mr. F made this offer conditional on waiving any further claims on the matter, which I would have agreed to. However, Mr. F further added a condition that we would not be able to speak about US Inspect or any of its agents in a manner which could be perceived as disparaging. This is an onerous and unacceptable condition, to abide by it we would in practice never be able to speak about US Inspect. I replied that we would be willing to accept if the condition limiting our ability to speak freely was removed; Mr. F stated that this would not be possible.
I very much appreciate the time and effort of the Revdex.com in attempting to resolve this dispute, I have the utmost respect for the work that the Revdex.com does and for those that do it, unfortunately, it does not seem that we have been able to make much progress in this dispute; it appears that it may not be ripe for dispute resolution. I do hope that this complaint at least may serve others in making a judgement on whether or not to use US Inspect for home inspection services. I know that I will be certain to make every real estate agent, home buyer, and home seller that I know aware of our experience; we seem to have discovered the real cost of using US Inspect and Mr. E for a home inspection and I certainly do not not let anyone enter that scenario blindly.
Wish we had checked these low lifes out, before we did any work for them. Will not pay their bill, or return phone calls. How can the Revdex.com support people like this? Need the ability to give negative stars as 1 is way to generous.
Mr. Wilson,
US Inspect has forwarded you a W9 form so that we can process the check. We are yet to receive the W9 from your company.
Upon receipt of the requested form, we will issue the check for the job performed.
Company was provided with a home warranty for radon testing in my home when we moved. Multiple phone calls were made last November to obtain the testing device. The device was sent back over a month ago- with a tracking number. According to the post office it was delivered there two days after it was mailed- with no response as to the results. Since last week I have called 6 times and sent an email with no response to either. I spoke with someone in the residential department and a woman named Rosie this morning. Both refused to allow me to speak with a supervisor or give additional contact information besides the number and the e-mail that I already have. If the radon level is above 4.0 they are required to put a system into my home. And considering I moved from a home less than a mile away with an elevated radon number I would like the results ASAP. Or at least a response from the company!
We sincerely regret the lapse in service. Our radon warranty service team underwent changes in the past few months. Since becoming aware of the customer’s concerns, we have delivered their results and have advised that their home has levels below the EPA’s action level. The lab reported the following:
· Customer began the test on 12/20/17 and ended 4/16/18.
· The test was received by the lab on 4/23/17 and was logged on 5/4/18.
· The data was analyzed on 5/16 and reported to US Inspect on 5/23/18.
· US Inspect delivered a final report to the customer on 5/23/18.
· Results were 2.0 pCi/L , which is below the EPA action level of 4.0 pCi/L.
We have reviewed internal procedures and have made changes to improve responsiveness to client inquiries.
The company responded to my husband's email which was never included in any of the correspondence between myself and the company. They received my husband's email from the realtor that sold the home after we had to involve both our purchasing and the selling realtor to receive the test results. We were never once told the process was changed or that the results were being processed. We never had anyone answer a call or had anyone that would transfer the call to a manager or supervisor who could answer our questions.
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
I hired US Inspect to inspect a house in Havertown. The inspector, Bob W, who is a very nice guy overall, did a really poor job. He missed many defects that were identified after I purchased the home. For example, some of the siding had pulled away from the brick frame of the house, leaving a gap that was letting in water. The gap was clearly visible. Also, the water line came in from the street at the front of the house in the basement but didn't have shut-off valves or a meter where it entered the house; only after the water line ran across the basement ceiling to the very back corner of the basement were there shut-off valves and a meter, so if the pipe burst in my basement I would have no way of shutting it off. This was obviously clearly visible. Also, the floor in one corner of the den had rotted significantly from water intrusion, and when you stepped in that area it gave way and dropped significantly. That should have been identified simply by walking over this area because it was right next to a window and they're supposed to look at every window. When we pulled up the rug the wood was completely rotted. Ironically, US Inspect sent Bob back out when I complained (after the sale) and he candidly acknowledged he missed these things, so I feel like he is an honest guy, even though he did a poor job. But US Inspect has given me an incredibly difficult time in my request to be reimbursed for the many thousands of dollars I've had to spend to correct problems that should have been identified so I could have negotiated with the seller. After I hired an attorney and filed a formal complaint, they referred the matter to outside counsel who seems like a nice guy but has been completely unreasonable in trying to give me a settlement amount that is acceptable. They offered me $1,000, and when I asked for $8,000 to cover all of my costs, the counter offer was $1,250! Insulting. So, I do NOT recommend using US Inspect. They have handled the situation unprofessionally and without any genuine concern for the poor quality of the inspection and how it has impacted me. Hire a smaller, local company that will give you better service and better treatment if there are issues.
Mr. Dean first raised his concerns about his home inspection to US Inspect after a contractor began significant renovations to his house. On the revisit by our inspector, Mr. Warth, the house was unrecognizable from the original inspection due to significant alterations, including the removal of paneling, drywall and other changes that exposed previously hidden areas, by the contractor hired by Mr. Dean.
Because of the significant renovations before the revisit, it is impossible to determine whether many of the “visible and apparent” defects, including the rotted wood, in Mr. Dean’s complaint were actually visible and apparent at the time of inspection but based on Mr. Warth’s experience, my conversations with him, and review of the inspection file, it is clear many of the alleged defects, including the rotted wood, were not visible or apparent at the time of the inspection. The rotted wood was only found after significant renovations to the house that went far beyond the limitations inherent in a general home inspection. The rotted wood was neither visible or apparent to Mr. Warth, a well-qualified inspector, at the time of the inspection, and before the major renovations conducted by Mr. Dean.
The other alleged miss pertaining to the location of the water meter and shut off valves, is clearly excluded in the “Limitations and Exclusions” section of Mr. Dean’s inspection services agreement. I have copied the relevant term below:
Utility Lines and Connections. US Inspect does not evaluate or give any opinion concerning conditions and/or safety in relation to private or public utility lines or connections to a Property (e.g., gas, electrical, water, sewage, phone, television, etc.). Clients who require such information must contact the appropriate utility provider.
The inspection services conducted by Mr. Warth measured up to prevailing national and state Standards of Practice within the home inspection industry, and that the inspection report issued to Mr. Dean accurately communicated the visible and apparent conditions that existed at the residence at the time of the inspection in October 2017. While we are disappointed to learn that Mr. Dean now believes that the inspection services were less than satisfactory, it is important to underscore our position that there were absolutely no shortcomings in the inspection services that were conducted by Mr. Warth.