Ingraffia Home Inspections Reviews (1)
View Photos
Ingraffia Home Inspections Rating
Description: Home Inspection Service
Address: 45 Blazewood, Foothill Ranch, California, United States, 92610
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
|
Add contact information for Ingraffia Home Inspections
Add new contacts
ADVERTISEMENT
Review: I hired [redacted] to do a home inspection of a property prior to closing the purchase.On Wednesday, October 9th we had a very bad rainstorm in Mission Viejo. During that rainstorm, we had water leaking through the interior frames of the patio door, main window and kitchen bay windows. Note not through any window cracks, but dripping through the frames and molding, etc. Thus water was getting in the walls somehow. We spent all night mopping up to make sure the new wood floors did not get damaged. When I looked at what was happening the next day, I looked at the patio cover from the upstairs windows vantage point, as well as from a step-ladder and crawling on the patio cover close-up. Various places the wood beam connecting the patio cover to the house wall was rotted that was against the house, and there were pockets for the rain water to collect. The collected water was then seeping into the walls, onto the window frames, and then into the house. The patio door frame became warped. As a temporary cover, there is now roof flashing and roofing compound running the whole house length along this seam now to prevent any further damage and to get us through the winter months ahead. But come spring I am going to have to have the patio cover and support beam removed, and see what damage is behind there and have it repaired. I cannot tell if there is more serious issues as well. We will need new (or at least repaired) patio doors need to be put in. Unfortunately the inspection did not point any of this out. No was no commentary of how degraded the house attachment to the house was. I was present at the inspection, and in retrospect [redacted] never looked at this, which covers 25% of the home exterior. Unfortunately this was not reviewed and is actually instead listed as in "Satisfactory" shape. Obviously, this is an expensive undertaking to replace this patio cover, and more importantly the water damage risks.Desired Settlement: I contacted [redacted] about his mistake and the need to work with him (and his insurance company) to work the repairs.Unfortunately his response was that regardless of the omission he did the best he could, and that his "Pre-Inspection Agreement" absolves him of any damages from things not detected. I told him that this is not merely something missed, but a negligent aspect of the inspection. this is a key point in any home inspection, and his Report has a section dedicated to it in fact.
Business
Response:
Reference ID
Please be advised
that [redacted] Home Inspections LLC failed to receive your initial complaint letter
dated 11/21/2013 as the mailing address listed was incorrect. The referenced pre inspection agreement and
inspection report delivered to [redacted] reflects our current business
address and thusly we are unclear why the wrong address was used.
The home inspection at [redacted],
Mission Viejo was performed diligently and all items disclosed under the scope
of work were inspected. These home inspections are visual inspections only,
and which items are readily visible are evaluated. On page 9 of
the inspection report under “Caulking” condition the following was checked
and noted: “X Recommend caulking around
windows/doors/masonry ledges/corners/utility penetrations”.
The initial inspection showed no signs of
moisture intrusion within the house from the areas listed by Mr. [redacted]. The
leaks and areas of concern occurred 4 months after the inspection. It would be
up to Mr. [redacted] to show that his areas of concern were part of the original inspection.
The last section
of the pre inspection agreement
clearly states the scope of work and also states that, “The
parties agree and understand that the Inspector and its employees and its
agents assume no liability or responsibility for the costs of repairing or
replacing any unreported defects or deficiencies either current or arising in
the future or any property damage, consequential damage or bodily injury of any
nature. The parties agree and understand the Inspector is not an insurer or
guarantor against defects in the structure, items, components, or systems
inspected. INSPECTOR MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS
FOR USE, CONDITION, PERFORMANCE OR ADEQUACY OF ANY INSPECTED STRUCTURE, ITEM,
COMPONENT, OR SYSTEM. In the event of a claim by the Client that an installed
system or component of the premises which was inspected by the Inspector was
not in the condition reported by the Inspector, the Client agrees to notify the
Inspector at least 72 hours prior to repairing or replacing such system or
component. The Client further agrees that the Inspector is liable only if there
has been a complete failure to follow the standards adhered to in the report or
State/Province law. Furthermore, any legal action must be brought within two
(2) years from the date of the inspection, or will be deemed waived and forever
barred.”
Mr. [redacted] made
the repairs reflected in his email stating he had sealed all the stated areas
of concern with tar thus making it impossible to view, he also waited almost 4
months after the incident to occur to make a complaint to my company not 72
hours which was stated in the signed pre inspection agreement.
Below are copies of my responses to emails received
from Mr. [redacted] and my recommendations made to him regarding his
situation, (all emails between myself
and Mr. [redacted] can be forwarded to you upon request).
1st
Response: I am very sorry to hear about some concerns you are having with
the house. The listed concerns from your email reflect items that are not
warranted by the physical inspection but should have been disclosed and
repaired by the seller/flipper who did the doors and windows and or the termite
company for the patio cover. The visual inspection of the home inspection does
not allow us to determine wood damage or probe areas of concern. We cannot
determine window or door leaks during the inspection and have no way of telling
if the windows and doors were installed correctly. If the rear house was sealed
that means the seller should have disclosed a previous problem in the TDS you
received from them. To clarify, these issues are seller related, termite
related, and are out of the scope of inspection. I would ask the
invester/seller to fix the items.
2nd
Response: [redacted], I am unsure the course of action you wish to take
regarding the inspection. My inspection and items found were done to the best
of my ability. The report and inspection hold no warranty or guarantee which is
also stated on the report. This situation has nothing to do with the inspection
and should be brought to the seller’s attention as the patio cover, doors and
windows were most likely installed and or repaired by them, and again the patio
cover should have been disclosed on the termite report if it was a potential
concern at the time of sale. If those avenues do not work, I would believe that
your home warranty which your agent bought you might fix the items you have
concerns about, vs going through your home owners insurance.
I hope this information helps you. No home
inspection company is a guarantee of any kind to ensure a house is perfect, and
some items do come up through potential wear or become damaged quickly. The
patio cover was observed and my opinion was stated in the report from what I
could see or view.
Final Response: I feel that we are currently at
an impasse and it appears that there is more involved here than meets the eye.
My final advice is for your legal counsel and yourself to review
the Pre Inspection Agreement dated June 18, 2013 and also the final report and
proceed at your discretion.
A copy of the inspection report is attached for your clarification.
Regards,
[redacted] Home Inspections LLC
Consumer
Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[redacted]’s response is not accurate and does not
reflect the primary issue at hand – namely there was negligence in the
Inspection that has led to serious issues.
I will respond in-line to his comments below, please see initials [MJ].
[[redacted]] The home inspection at [redacted],
Mission Viejo was performed diligently and all items disclosed under the scope
of work were inspected. These home inspections are visual inspections only, and
which items are readily visible are evaluated. On page 9 of the inspection report
under “Caulking” condition
the following was checked and noted: “X Recommend caulking around windows/doors/masonry
ledges/corners/utility penetrations”.
[MJ] Important
to note that [redacted] did not view the patio cover as he was hired to do; so when he says ”all
items disclosed under the scope of work were inspected” is not a true statement. He did
not perform the task he was hired for in a diligent manner as he portrays. I was there with [redacted] and walked with him for
the inspection – he at no time had a ladder to look at the patio
cover connection to home. This is the
fundamental negligent aspect of the Inspection that has yielded the problems we
have now. The issue was easily accessible, easily visible, it was in the scope of work I hired him for - it was not performed..
[MJ]
[redacted] additionally points out a Report section unrelated to the area that was to
be inspected. There is in fact a Inspection
Report section dedicated to Patio Covers on page 4. In that section he lists the patio cover state
as Satisfactory (his best rating), and although his Report template in this
section also has a place to note problems with improper connection to the house, it was also not noted. It is
important to note that his own Report template has this item in the scope of
work he is to check, and he did not perform it.
[[redacted]] The initial inspection showed no signs of
moisture intrusion within the house from the areas listed by Mr. [redacted]. The
leaks and areas of concern occurred 4 months after the inspection. It would be
up to Mr. [redacted] to show that his areas of concern were part of the original
inspection.
[MJ] Indeed there was no moisture presented,
until it rained. This is when the
improper connection of the patio cover and open holes in the home stucco was first
revealed to me. An example picture of
this easily visible construction defect is provided. This should have been revealed at the
Inspection had it been viewed as was expected.
When I approached [redacted] with the issue, he made no effort, offer or
interest to come and review the issues.
His approach from the initial engagement has been to avoid any
responsibility for the Inspection omission and instead suggest seeking others to remedy
the damages.
[[redacted]]
The last section of the pre
inspection agreement clearly
states the scope of work and also states that, “The parties agree and understand that the
Inspector and its employees and its agents assume no liability or responsibility
for the costs of repairing or replacing any unreported defects or deficiencies
either current or arising in the future or any property damage, consequential
damage or bodily injury of any nature. The parties agree and understand the
Inspector is not an insurer or guarantor against defects in the structure,
items, components, or systems inspected. INSPECTOR MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS FOR USE, CONDITION, PERFORMANCE OR ADEQUACY OF
ANY INSPECTED STRUCTURE, ITEM, COMPONENT, OR SYSTEM. In the event of a claim by
the Client that an installed system or component of the premises which was
inspected by the Inspector was not in the condition reported by the Inspector,
the Client agrees to notify the Inspector at least 72 hours prior to repairing
or replacing such system or component. The Client further agrees that the
Inspector is liable only if there has been a complete failure to follow the
standards adhered to in the report or State/Province law. Furthermore, any
legal action must be brought within two (2) years from the date of the
inspection, or will be deemed waived and forever barred.”
[MJ] As
I noted in my initial effort to work with [redacted] on repairs, he desires his
pre-inspection agreement to absolve his responsibility here. This does not cover negligence.
This
issue with the patio cover was in the scope of work to be inspected, it was easily
visible and easily accessible, and thus should have been presented to us. Matters were made worse by preparing a report
on the Patio Cover condition without appropriately viewing it and instead gave
a misrepresentation of it’s actual state.
This fact is evident in his report “Satisfactory” rating relative to the
actual condition of the cover leaking water in all walls/windows. A Home
Inspection is a key aspect of a home purchase decision. Trust and reliance is put in the Inspector to
do a diligent professional job and be the advocate for their customer, not skip
over such a key aspect where home damage can be.
[[redacted]] Mr.
[redacted] made the repairs reflected in his email stating he had sealed all the
stated areas of concern with tar thus making it impossible to view, he also
waited almost 4 months after the incident to occur to make a complaint to my
company not 72 hours which was stated in the signed pre inspection agreement.
[**] As stated prior, the omissions in the
Inspection did not become evident until a weather storm. When I approached [redacted] with this issue and
need to rectify, he made no effort or interest to come and review the issues. The fact that I had to get flashing up
immediately to avoid further damage does not obviate the issue at hand.
If at any time he wanted to come review the issues, that could have been
done and could replace back the flashing.
I believe anyone would expect the Professional
behavior to be to work to fix the damages from this major Inspection omission,
versus all efforts to avoid it.
[[redacted]] Below
are copies of my responses to emails received from Mr. [redacted] and my recommendations
made to him regarding his situation, (all
emails between myself and Mr. [redacted] can be forwarded to you upon request).
[MJ] The entire email transcript of our
conversation were supplied to the Revdex.com at the initial complaint, versus these few snippets
[redacted] has pasted. Reviewing that email
dialogue, it shows that [redacted] suggests besides being protected from any responsibility
by his Pre-Inspection Agreement (as he does above as well), he suggests that various other people is whom I should seek to be held responsible. He suggests the Seller is responsible – the
Inspection is what a prospective home buyer uses in evaluating purchasing a property
and determining serious flaws like this - i.e. before the sale concludes.
He suggests going after the Termite inspector – this is not a termite
issue, it is a construction defect issue that was easily accessible and
visible at Inspection. He suggests using the Home
Warranty policy I have – this defect and related repairs are not covered by that type of policy. He also
suggests using my homeowners Insurance (vs his business insurance) – again,
these items are not covered by a Homeowner's policy.
The summary is the patio cover connection to the home is a key aspect of a Home Inspection, and is in the expected scope of work. Additionally
it is in his own Inspection work task by nature of his Report Template. Unfortunately, the tasked inspection did not
occur. The report instead misleadingly
gave us a positive rating of the patio cover's condition ahead of our purchase decision,
and not lending us the options we would have had at that time with the Seller. This negligence in the Inspection has led to
the damages described. The communication
I had with [redacted] has left us very disappointed. Instead of stepping up to his mistake and
responsibility to remedy it, he waives his responsibility and at the same time
attempts to shift it to someone else.
This is not what one would expect from a business that is professional
and diligent. Making things right is
what [redacted] Home Inspections is expected to do.
Regards,