Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/04/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am filing a complaint about an inspection completed by *****. The inspection was performed in March, in preparation for my closing in April 2024. I have since found out that significant defects and concerns were not identified in the inspection - which has resulted in significant financial liability that I was not prepared for when purchasing this property. Three examples are:-A leaking roof. After seeing signs of severely broken tiles, I contacted a roofing contractor, and they identified water intrusion within minutes of looking at the property, identifying an easily visible stain on the ceiling of the garage. However, signs of a leak were not noted in the inspection report. The roofer went on to show me multiple severely broken tiles, and tiles that were not even nailed in place or covering the underlayment - easily visible even from the driveway. Going back to the home inspection images taken by drone, it is easy to see tiles stacked up on the roof exposing the underlayment, but this was not noted in the inspection report. Roofing and leak repairs cost me $5,400.-A leaking dishwasher. The dishwasher flooded the kitchen floor on my first use. After looking around the baseboard, I could see signs of water damage from this occurring in the past. No leaks from the dishwasher were noted in the inspection report. I was forced to repair or replace the dishwasher after the inspection noted no concerns.-I attempted to reach out to the company multiple times, but did not receive a response. I then turned to the 120 day warranty featured on their website as protection from the unexpected repairs (I have a screenshot this was featured). However, the company informed me that this property was never enrolled in their insurance program, leaving us without coverage or protection. This is either extremely misleading advertising, or another major oversight.The company has simply ignored all of my communication requests.

  Business Response

  Date: 12/02/2024

  Good Morming,

  This is in response to the complaint from *********** *****, *****************************************  Our apologies for the delay in response, we were impacted severely by hurricane ****** with over 2 feet of water and have been displaced since trying to maintain operations and moving. Mr. ***** indicated we we're unresponsive to his email, we did not respond to the email the inspector spoke with Mr. ***** directly.

  Mr. ******* concern was based on roof issues.  In the inspection report, 2 issues were mentioned:

  1.  Item 13.1.1 - CRACKED/BROKEN ROOF TILES. In the pictures provided in the report more than a dozen cracked tiles were identified in the included pictures. We also provided pictures of every slope of the roof in the report.  We recommended further evaluation by a roofing professional.

  2. Because of the condition and numerous cracked tiles. We did not walk the roof because we did not want to cause additional damage based on its condition. The roof was inspected via drone and the following disclaimer was included in the report: Inspected By Drone - An aerial drone was used for the roof evaluation. It is understood that this method of inspection is not as thorough as if the roof surface was able to be walked, and is considered a limited inspection. Any comments made in this report relating to the roof covering, roof protrusions, gutters, chimneys, etc. are limited to the visible perspective of the drone. If a more thorough inspection is desired I recommend consulting a roof contractor prior to the end of your inspection contingency.

  I understand Mr. **** is upset when he brought in a roofing contractor approximately four months after our inspection who identified numerous cracked tiles and an apparent leak. The area of the leak is one of the identified cracked tiles in the photos. I think it's also important to note that we had no communication with Mr. ***** from the time the inspection was booked, until months after the inspection. He chose not to attend the inspection, and no post inspection debriefing was requested.

  We followed all the state of Florida standards for a home inspection, which does not require an inspector to walk a roof.  A copy of the inspection report is attached to this response. So you can see what was identified. Please recognize tile roofs require regular maintenance and if you speak to a roofing professional they will tell you an inspection should be done approximately every 6 to 12 months to check for loose sliding and cracked tiles. I recognize in his complaint he responded that there were over 40 cracked tiles. This is quite possible and still represents less than 1% of the total coverage of the roof.  In the photos we provided you can see approximately 15 tiles that were identified as damaged. Please understand the inspection is a moment in time, and conditions from the time of the inspection to four months when he brought in a roofer conditions could have worsened, additional tiles could be broken (storms, falling palm fronds, and ******* extreme weather conditions) the fact that so many tiles were identified indicates a lack of maintenance from the previous homeowner which is why we recommended further evaluation.  Had he brought in a roofer during his inspection window they may have identified further issues which we could not do to use of the drone and the current condition of the roof.

  Thank you, 

  The Properly Inspected Team

   

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/02/2024

   
  Complaint: 22507763
  
  Thank you for your recent response. While I appreciate your effort to address my concerns, I am rejecting this response because: your explanation fails to resolve the core issues raised in my initial complaint.
  

  1. Misrepresentation of Insurance Coverage:
  Your response did not address the advertised 120-day warranty that you advertise with your services. Despite this warranty being prominently featured on your website at the time of the inspection, I was informed that my property was not enrolled in the program. This discrepancy represents either false advertising or a major oversight on your part. This matter remains unresolved and is critical, it would have provided coverage for these issues.
  2. Lack of Communication:
  Your claim that the inspector, *****, spoke with me directly about these concerns is inaccurate. Every attempt I made to contact ***** following the inspection via emails sent on 6/7/24 and 7/22/24 went unanswered. This unresponsiveness compounded my frustration and left me without the guidance I should have received after discovering the issues.
  3. Reasonable Timeline for Leak Discovery:
  The significant water intrusion and roof issues were discovered less than three months of the inspection, not "more than four months" as you stated. This time frame is entirely reasonable, given that it encompassed the closing process, moving into the property, and then identifying signs of water intrusionsuch as a stain on the garage ceilingthat were missed during the inspection. This timeline is also less than the 120 day warranty that should have been provided, further indicating that this is a reasonable timeline. Your claim that conditions may have worsened over time does not excuse the failure to identify critical and visible issues at the time of inspection.
  4. Drone Inspection and Report Findings:
  While I understand the limitations of drone inspections, your report included photos that clearly show exposed underlayment and severely broken tiles. These obvious and significant issues were not flagged with the necessary urgency, nor was there sufficient emphasis on the need for immediate professional evaluation. This lack of clarity left me unaware of the potential severity of the roofs condition. These were merely noted as "broken tiles" and the inspection report specifically stated quote: "This is primarily a cosmetic issue."

  5. The inspection also missed signs of water intrusion damage on the ceiling of the garage - an obvious sign that the roof had been leaking.

  The response from Properly Inspected fails to honestly recognize the shortcomings of this inspection and attempts to deflect blame to the homeowner.
  Thank you,
  *********** ******

  Business Response

  Date: 12/13/2024

  Mr. ******:

   

  Again were very sorry to hear youre not satisfied with inspection completed. To address the items listed in your rebuttal:

   

        We do not feel we misrepresented any insurance coverage. The 120 day warranty was not offered as part of your inspection. No information was provided to you about the warranty program as we had stopped using it. It was found to be misleading and had multiple caveats which in your case would not have provided any coverage. To remove it we had to have our website rewritten with new modern code/language which took some time.  We did not provide any documentation of the program like we did in other programs that were offered to you.

        As far as communication from the inspector, yes that could be improved, however the inspector recall speaking with you months after the inspection.  We did email you (March 14^th) two days after you received the report asking if you had any questions but we received no response. This wouldve been the perfect time to get the inspector's opinion on their findings and again answer any questions you may have had about the report.

        Reasonable timeline for leak discovery? It was recommended that you further evaluate by a roofer during your inspection window (typically 5-10 days). It appears you had a roofer evaluate months later after a leak was discovered instead of immediately following the inspection as recommended.

        Report findings and urgency. Its difficult to emphasize and report urgency in a paper document. We provided all the information we could. As you know we had no communication with you throughout the process. The inspection was scheduled by your agent. We had no communication with you even after our follow up email asking if you had any questions. Our first communication with you was in May about a plumbing issue.  We have many clients who prefer not to be contacted, and we respected your privacy after our follow up email.

        Missed water intrusion in the garage ceiling. There was no water intrusion in the garage ceiling. We have multiple photos which we have provided to the Better Business Bureau showing the condition of the ceiling in the garage. Certainly, if staining was noticed during your final walk-through, move in, etc. you could have questioned it immediately. We did not hear about any staining until a roofer was hired in June, three months after our recommendation. 

   

  While the warranty program was not available, we will provide you information to contact our primary insurance company if you wish to make a claim for the inspection. This information will be sent to you via separate email; we will include a copy to the Better Business Bureau as well.

   

   

  Attachments:

  The attachment below "IMG..._988" is a 360 image.  It is best viewed with a 360 image viewer (which are available free on the Internet). With this type image you can click rotate, look up, down, and in zoom in the full view of the garage.

  Thank you, 
  The Properly Inspected Team

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/20/2024

   
  Complaint: 22507763
  
  I am rejecting this response:

  Thank you for your response and for providing additional details. However, I must reiterate that your explanation continues to fall short in addressing the core issues raised in my complaint. Please allow me to clarify and refute your latest points:  

  
  
  1. Misrepresentation of Insurance Coverage
  Your response regarding the 120-day warranty is inconsistent and unsatisfactory.  
  - The warranty was prominently featured on your website at the time of my inspection, which you both acknowledge and I have recorded in a screenshot. Whether the program was discontinued or not, it was actively advertised as part of your services, leading me to believe my property would be covered.  
  - If the warranty was no longer offered, it was your responsibility to update your website in a timely manner to avoid misleading customers. The explanation that the website "took time to update" is not an adequate justification.  
  
  
  2. Communication Deficiencies
  Your claim that I did not respond to an email on March 14th or request follow-up is misleading:  
  - The communication referred to was not about specific findings or issues with the inspection but a general post-report check-in.  The inspection report did not indicate that there were any urgent matters with which I would need to follow up with you. My subsequent emails on June 7th and July 22nd outlining my concerns were ignored, resulting in this complaint. I would have rather been able to come to a resolution with you directly. The inspector's alleged recall of speaking with me "months after the inspection" is false; I received no direct communication regarding these concerns.  
  
  
  3. Reasonable Timeline for Leak Discovery
  Your suggestion that a roofer should have been engaged during the inspection window fails to acknowledge the reality of the homebuying process:  
  - The water intrusion and roof issues were discovered within three months of the inspection, well within a reasonable timeframe that included closing, moving in, and noticing concerning signs.  
  - The recommendation for a roofing evaluation was not conveyed with the necessary urgency, despite clear signs of significant damage. It is unreasonable to shift the burden onto me for your failure to flag these critical issues adequately, after you called the identified problems primarily a cosmetic issue.  
  
  
  4. Report Findings and Urgency
  Your statement that "its difficult to emphasize urgency in a paper document" is unacceptable:  
  - The report explicitly referred to cracked tiles as "primarily a cosmetic issue," downplaying the seriousness of the damage. Additionally, exposed underlayment and visible signs of water intrusion in the photos were not flagged appropriately.  
  
  
  5. Missed Water Intrusion in Garage Ceiling
  Your claim that there were no visible signs of water intrusion at the time of inspection is contradicted by photographic evidence:  
  - The roofing contractor identified visible water stains in the garage ceiling, which align with the damaged tiles in your own photos.
  - The photos that you attached do not show the area in which the water spot was identified, so this does not prove that the leaking roof must have began during the short window of time between your inspection and when the leak was identified. The damage was identified above the hot water heater, an area that has been obstructed from view in these photographs due to the garage door being in the open position. The fact is, even if you could demonstrate that there was not signs of water intrusion at the time of the inspection, there would still be serious deficiencies that have been reviewed above. However, this cannot be demonstrated and it is quite clear that serious roofing concerns were missed during the inspection and not properly communicated to me, the client.

  
  
  Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt resolution.
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/14/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Paid for an inspection prior to buying home on 6/28/2022. Several issues missed during the inspection. Leaking Washing machine faucet, Leaking hose, Leaking valve at irrigation tank, Hot and cold switched at tub faucet, screen door closures that dont work, light covers and bulbs that need replaced in the garage, light switch reversed in master bathroom, salt system not working as indicated on the report, and most importantly a LIVE electrical wire exposed to the elements. Inspector came back out to see everything and kept saying - No way I would have missed that, that wasn't the way I saw it before, I will have to check my report, sometimes realtors go through the house and turn lights on and off, etc. Only offer was to reimburse me for the inspection. That doesnt even cover the cost of all the repairs I will have to pay several trades to take care of.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/27/2022

  We went back out to the house as soon as we saw the poor review to investigate the claims that were made. 
  These are issues that the inspector does not miss. However after leaving the house and talking it over, we looked back at the calendar and noticed that the inspectors father had passed away the day before the inspection. With that being saidHe shouldnt have been out in the field that day. We did pay for the electrical and plumbing issues that were (admittedly) missed. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/04/2022

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************