Complaints

This profile includes complaints for BPG Inspection, LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

BPG Inspection, LLC has 3 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  BPG Inspection, LLC

  2475 Northwinds Pkwy Ste 250 Alpharetta, GA 30009-4817

  
• 

  BPG Inspection LLC

  10097 Manchester Rd Ste 200 Suite 200 Kirkwood, MO 63122-1828

• 

  BPG Home Inspections

  100 Bayberry Hill Road West Townsend, MA 01474

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:07/09/2025

  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 hired BPG inspection company to perform a general home inspection on 4/4/2025.when I purchased a condo. The inspector failed to inspect the patio, assuming it was the **** responsibility. However, the patio is actually under the owner's responsibility, which I discovered after closing when issues were found.I believe the inspector should have verified the ownership before excluding it from inspection. This assumption has caused me unexpected repair costs that might have been identified and negotiated prior to purchase.Resolution Requested:I would like the inspector to acknowledge this oversight and discuss possible compensation for the missed patio inspection. The real agent recommended them. Its not professional to assume HOA covers outside. They refused to do anything. This is not professional at all.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/09/2025

  We are certainly sorry to hear of this clients concerns, however we have repeatedly explained to them over the last 2 weeks that they specifically ordered an interior-only inspection of the condominium they were considering purchasing. The report they received explicitly explained, "This was an interior-only inspection of only the subject unit. Observations made about the structure are as a courtesy only and not an evaluation of the entire building's structure. He then explained, Become familiar with the condominium by-laws and the delegation of responsibility for maintenance.Confirm that there are adequate financial resources and planning for regular exterior maintenance and future repairs and replacements. He then specifically discussed the deck by stating, "Monitor the condition of all deck/balcony/porch railings and ensure they remain safe and secure. Verification or determination of the load-carrying capability of the deck/balcony/porch is not included in this inspection. In many cases, it is not possible to see how the deck is connected to the home. Review the homeowner association documents to determine ownership and who is responsible for maintaining the deck or balcony(s)."

  Then the inspector went on to report several concerns about the doors to the exterior and the issues he saw at the time with them. 

  We explained to the client that they need to go back and see how they acted on the contents of the inspection report and then they need to review with the seller the history of deck repairs a the property and the seller's interaction with the community HOA. 

  We cannot help them with thier concerns about a component that wasn't part of their inspection.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/09/2025

   
  Complaint: 23576284
  
  
  

  Thank you for your response and for taking the time to explain your position in detail.
  I understand that the inspection was designated as "interior-only" and that the report outlined certain limitations regarding the deck and exterior components. However, my concern is not just about what was included or excluded, but about the assumption made during the inspection regarding ownership of the patio area.
  At the time, the inspector assumed the patio/deck was under HOA responsibility without verification. As a result, the inspection did not address an area that as I later learned is legally under the unit owner's responsibility. This assumption has had real financial consequences, as significant issues with the patio were discovered after purchase.
  While I appreciate that disclaimers were included in the report, I believe a more thorough approach or at minimum, a recommendation to confirm patio ownership could have prevented this oversight. As a buyer, I relied on the inspectors expertise and expected that any ambiguity would be clarified or flagged for follow-up.
  Im requesting a full refund of inspection and pay for half of the fix/ repair cost also Im raising concern over a missed opportunity to advise more accurately based on verified facts, not assumptions. I believe this represents a gap in diligence, not simply a scope exclusion.
  I hope you can reconsider the situation from this perspective. Please let me know if you are open to discussing any potential resolution.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/30/2025

  Type:Sales and Advertising 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.

  My husband ordered a home inspection to be done and the inspector missed major issues with our pool, a water leak, and electrical box issues that were out of code and could have led to a fire. my husband and I reached out to file a claim and then followed up two weeks later and only received an email saying we didnt respond when nothing was emailed or we had no missed calls. We were told they would reopen our claim. We still didnt receive a response and have continued to reach out. We have incurred financial losses because of the issues missed in the inspection.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/09/2025

  Im sorry that there has been such a disconnect with this client, but based on what I see I dont believe were the source of help that you need to address these issues. We explained to the client... ****** inspection didnt observe any breakers tripping at the time of his inspection,but his report included multiple action items that called for specific pool equipment repairs by a licensed electrician. So either youll need to review the work done by the electrician hired as a result of ****** inspection in February or youll need to hire an electrician anyways to address the actionable safety issues and who would also be able to look into the new tripping issues. While *** does have a 90-day guarantee on the mechanical systems (HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc.) that we inspect, they have to be in good working order on the day of the inspection to have coverage and the electrical system was in need of repair in February. With respect to the water intrusion, home inspectors have no way to predict the future on matters like that and you should certainly call your homeowners insurance for assistance.***** reported the roof as 6-10 years old which means that it has been subjected to countless rainstorms over just the last 5 years. If there was something like a vent that was leaking rainwater into the home then it would have been a far more obvious concern for everyone back in February. The fact that you ordered a mold test back then, and the results were normal, shows that there hasnt been a systemic water issue going on. So the question the insurance adjuster will have to answer is what caused the water intrusion? Yes, there was a big storm that day (3.26in according to **********************), but there was also a storm with 2in of rain back on 1/27 and one nearly as bad on 12/25. So what changed to allow water into the home that day?

  The client will need to review what took place prior to closing and the seller's disclosure to determine their next steps and they should call their homeowner's insurance regarding the new water leaks.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/13/2025

   
  Complaint: 23398330
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  Hi Mr. ********* thank you for your response. I understand being away from work for a family vacation. However, our original claim was filed in mid April and no response was received except an email from ****** claiming that no response was received from us and that the claim was closed. This was false and we followed up to her email and didn't receive a single response. I also called multiple times throughout May including to reopen the claim, since Kiarha never opened, addressed, or took action on the claim with a response. It was after over a month of numerous calls and emails that led to the claim with the BBB. My last call in I spoke with the lady who took my incoming call for the original claim and she stated that our record did show that we had been calling in to discuss. 
  Now to the issues at hand. The roof leak thankfully was addressed and mitigated by the seller and the general contractor that did the repair. In regards to the pool issues that were stated in the inspection report are the following that were highlighted by *****: Pool GFCI not present, pool ladder being an issue, equipment needing to be bond/ground, and that equipment was functional. All those issues were fixed by the seller before closing since we made a request following the inspection. However, the filter on the other hand even though functional by just looking at it it was in pretty bad shape. The recommendation should have been for an expert pool inspection if it was out of scope for the inspector as he mentioned in an email. 
  In regards to the electrical panel, the panel is brand new. Pictures can be seen in your own company inspection report. I also have records of the application to the city for a new panel and inspection. It is less than a year old. We hired an electrician to install a surge protector device that was recommend in the inspection report and repair the issue with the washer/dryer outlet. The additional issues that were uncovered with the panel was that when you opened the panel cover the wire was the incorrect size for the 15 amp switch that powered the pool motor that was needing a approximately 19 amps. This was immediately noticed by our electrician when the panel cover was removed. The electrician stated that there should not have  been a load of more than 13 amps on a ********************************************************************* the patio and opened the junction box and found illegally spliced extension cord that fed the power to the pool motor. The electrician was amazed that there had not been any electrical fires between the pool motor and newly service installed electric service panel. Which your team stated that the system panel was installed correctly, grounded, and bonded. I have included a photo of the wiring and can ship it to you for inspection if you would like. There is no reason why the issue with the panel would not have been caught during inspection unless the panel cover was not taken off. Which is not the case which is evident from the photos in the inspection report where it clearly shows the panel cover was removed. We paid for an inspection plus an upgraded inspection of the pool as well. The pool electrical supply to the pool should have been caught when the pool was inspected by ***. All these issues have not only caused stress and concern for the state of our home but also have cost us significant money (several thousands of dollars) at a time when we are getting ready to welcome our first ***** This should have been discovered during inspection and could have allowed us to negotiate with the seller and avoid all the expenses we have had. We expect for you all to take ownership and financial responsibility. Please advise on next steps that *** will take to resolve this matter.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** And **** *******
  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/16/2025

  We appreciate the opportunity to continue the discussion with this client, but unfortunately, we remain on vastly different pages. Obviously, we're happy to hear that the roofing concerns that were initially sent our way were able to be addressed by the seller / contractor. The pool inspection report remains an accurate review of conditions observed that day. We appreciate that the client is in agreement that the filter was functioning properly when we were there as well. Again, home inspectors cannot predict future conditions, but certainly if the filter needed to be replaced when the seller's contractor was there, the buyers should review why that was not suggested at that time as well. It's not uncommon for specialists to find additional repairs when they come out to fix things that are in the inspector's report, but in this case, it sounds like the specialist didn't see any issues either, and it wasn't until weeks later that problems arose. Lastly, the new concerns regarding the wiring are also not an issue we can help with. The wiring was already "deficient" on the **** report based on the visible conditions in February, but the home inspector under the **** standards isn't reporting on the sizing of wiring or the load balancing in the panel. And while the inspector comment about the open junction boxes observed in the attic, the inspector does not remove junction box covers or trace any wiring through the walls of the home. These again are things that a licensed electrician can do, but are not part of the scope of a home inspection according to the state of Texas. 
  
  We're glad to hear that the clients have documentation from the sellers about the repairs and renovations that took place, and they should be able to contact those contractors who performed recent repairs to ensure they did so in a manner consistent with the appropriate codes and with proper permitting. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/22/2025

   
  Complaint: 23398330
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The original complaint was on the pool issue. I didn't agree that the filter was working on the day of the inspection. The filter was already in bad condition just by the look of it on the day of inspection based on the picture that were taken and are in the inspection report, which we paid additional for the pool inspection. The warranty company denied the claim on the pool because the tech stated that the filter was already in bad condition even from the photos that are listed in the inspection report which was not commented on in the report. We should have been alerted that we needed a pool specialist at the time of inspection. It would have allowed us to negotiate that with the seller because of the issue has cost us over $2000. Also you keep claiming the there is a report stating the electrical panel was deficient.  However, the outdoor electric panel that is the main service for the house was not deficient and newly installed. Can you please share the report you are referring to, because the inspection report that was sent to us doesn't state that at all. The outdoor electrical service panel issue should have been caught in the inspection.  The issue was found when the electrical panel door was opened. We are familiar with working with you all, as this is the third home we have used you all for. The previous two we didn't have an issue but in this one there was definitely issues that were missed and we expect you all to take ownership of it. I understand that you stated that there is no way for you to know what the next day brings. However the company offers a 90 day guarantee and we were well within the 90 days when it was discovered and reported especially within days of even being at the property. Please advise on the report your are referring to. If you need me to copy the inspection report that was sent to us, please let us know. Also on next steps to resolve. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** And **** *******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/20/2025

  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.

  We contracted **** ******* / BPG Inspections to inspect a home we wanted to buy. The inspection was scheduled for 3/5/25 at 4PM. When I arrived at ***, **** was already working. I did not know what he inspected prior to me getting there. It was a chilly day but no rain. I believe it was a little cloudy. Our realtor & the sellers were also present for the inspection. I was onsite with the inspector for maybe 30 mins. He did explain / point our some items to the seller and I. There was a dog next to garage but **** never said it was in the way of him doing his job.He provided the report. Nothing super serious was on there. So we proceeded to buy the home.Within a few hours of taking possession of house I walked to the side of the garage and seen a gaping hole along with the facade sagging. The wood has rotted away due to water damage. When you walk inside the garage there is an extremely strong smell of mildew or mold. The hole is on the roof a long the side of the garage. The garage is finished which means the inside has dry ****************** The water has been leaking into the walls as well. Inside, the rafters are also water damaged to the point you can poke the wood and it will chip away. I advised my ************* provided me with the phone # to BPG ************ I called & filed a claim. They asked me to get a quote and we did. Today 5/20 they called me and said they are only willing to refund the amount of the inspection plus $1000. They keep saying wind damage when it is water damage. They blamed it on the dog being in the ********** said **** inspected the garage roof from the house roof. It is a detached garage which is about more than 20 feet away from the home. This repair is going to cost over $10,000. Regarding the report, when it came to the garage there is no mention or pictures of the roof. There is also no mention of the dog being in his way in order to inspect the garage roof.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/21/2025

  We certainly hate to hear of the clients concerns and we have reviewed the matter thoroughly. As he indicates, this inspection was done back on March 5th at 4pm at the client's request. I'm not surprised to hear that **** *** have started early as he wouldn't have wanted the amount of remaining daylight to limit his ability to perform the inspection. The report documents that it was cloudy and below 40 degrees at the inspection, with snow showers and very windy. However, even in those conditions, **** is a veteran inspector having been licensed with the state for over 20 years, and he has been with *** for nearly as long, and he continued to perform the inspection at that time to the full extent of his abilities. The report documents the 13 action items and 34 total "key findings" that he observed that day, but we understand the focus of the client's concern is the detached garage.

  Adam's report shows his inspection of the garage that day, including a photograph from the front of the garage showing the active snow at that time. The photograph also shows the stored belongings in the garage and the garbage around the outside of the garage. He identified concerns with electrical conditions in the garage, with the large crack on the floor slab, the thermostat / furnace and he specifically noted, " Due to personal items stored in the garage, inspection of the garage was limited. Recommend checking the condition of the garage during last walk through." There is no indication of the significant storm damage to the exterior shingles that was reported to our office on April 25th. There was no foul odor or mildew smell that anyone reported that day. 

  There are only two scenarios to consider here. The first scenario is that this extensive damage didn't exist in it's current form on the day of the inspection. This would explain why it wasn't in the report on March 5th and the client would need to go back to their notes from their walk-through before closing to determine what the visible condition of the garage was on that day. Alternatively, the other choice is that it was there and wasn't seen at the inspection. Both **** & the client recall a large dog being in the exterior yard at the time of the inspection, and that may have impacted his ability to fully walk that area. If that is the case, the client would be entitled to a refund of the $425 inspection fee as that is the limit of liability on the signed inspection agreement and the state of Illinois has repeatedly upheld contracts to that limitation. A home inspection is not a warranty program or an insurance policy, but rather an inspection is one man's professional opinion on one day and time.

  Again, in this case, we don't even know if this was a "miss" as it would be shocking that nobody... not the inspector, agent or client... would have seen this glaring damage on the day of the inspection as it clearly requires no specialized training to see the damage that exists today. So even though we don't think it was missed, we did go ahead and offer the client their full refund regardless of any disagreement as we hate for any client to have unexpected costs like this. In addtiion, in light of the timing of the matter, we have also agreed to utilize our courtesy 90-day guarantee and apply the $1,000 of coverage afforded to the roof system to also help address the clients concerns. This total of $1,425 was immediately rejected by the client, but it also represents the most that any client would ever expect to receive in compensation for any post-inspection complaint. 

  We certainly don't want any client to have a surprise like this, but again, the question goes back to what was seen once the client acted on the report and the stored belongins were removed. If this was a known defect from a prior storm, then it would have been in the seller's disclosure and would have been readily apparent once the belongings were cleared out. Otherwise, if this happened after the inspection the sellers would still have to disclose the matter and their insurance may be helpful to the client in his repair efforts. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/21/2025

   
  Complaint: 23355355
  
  I am rejecting this response because: When BPG called me on 5/20 to inform me of their decision they keep saying it is wind damage when it is water damage. You can tell it has been this way for an extended amount of time because the wood is completely rotted away. It has also rotted the walls & rafters inside.They also said that the inspector **** visually inspected the garage roof from the roof of our house. This is a detached garage that is over 20 feet away. Had he went on the garage roof like he should of to "properly" inspect it, he would have found the damage or any attempt to try to conceal it. The fact that he omitted any info of the roof (condition, look or age), did not take pictures of the garage roof like he did for the house, or even mention that he could not get to the roof because of the dog is proof he did not give any concern to roof of the garage. He also would have found that there are currently 3 layers of shingles which is in violation of Oak Lawn code of not having more than 2 layers (picture attached).

  Regarding the dog, the owners were there and he could have very easily asked that the dog be moved. There was nothing else hindering **** from getting on the garage roof other than the dog.
  

  If you read the reviews of this company you can very easily see a trend that has costed people thousands of dollars.
  

  Their business practices are predatory. In the contract that you must sign there is a clause that releases them from the client suing them if they miss anything. They know that most if the time it will have to go to small claims court and most people don't have the money to hire a lawyer that will cost them half the amount they would have to pay to fix what BPG missed.

  If there is no consequence if they do a bad job or miss something then what keeps them in check or ensures they do a good job all the time? 

  BPG stole the joy of buying & owning an new home from me & my family. I beg BBB to please do what it is meant to do and protect the people.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******** ********

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/21/2025

  We do appreciate the homeowners response and we're happy to try to clarify a few points...

  Yes... There is absolutely water damage in the walls... but it's the wind damage that appears to have removed the shingles on the exterior that allwoed water to get into the home. It actualy looks like it's tree damage, but there's no tree overhanging the roof that could have caused the damage i saw... which leaves wind as the source.

  No... The home inspector is never there to report on code compliance. That is outside the scope of a home inspection under the state licensing law. Code requirements are for the installers who put in the roof and who apply for the permits, but a home inspector has no way to know what the local code was at the time each and every component was installed and no component has to be updated to meet the current code every time the code changes.

  Yes... I'd love to know more about what happened in the back-yard that day... but the only concrete evidnce to go on is the inspection report. Everything else is just conjecture. I can see it raining / snowing in the report, I can see the comments about the condition of the garage interior and i can't see the corner of the roof in question... Again, if this was a miss, the solution is a refund of the inspection fee... if this wasn't a miss but has since been uncovered... the solution is a refund of the inspection fee. 

  Yes... *** has some negative reviews online, but this inspection was also order #*******... I wish that every customer remained happy with the ******************** that we performed, but out of the 1.07 million customers over the last 30 years... i'm okay with our overall performance. We want to get better everyday and we want fewer and fewer complaints, but we know that the other 99+% that aren't complaining are important too. 

  Yes... Our inspection agreement limits the liability to the amount of the inspection fee. The buyer was free to shop around to the hundreds of local inspectors before choosing ***. They also will typically find that other inspection companies offer near identical terms in thier agreement. Again, this serves to reinforce that a home inspection is not a warranty of conditions or an insurance policy, but it is simply a photograph of conditions seen at one moment in time. 

  Again, we do hate to hear of this customers frustrations and "loss of joy". It does matter to us which is why we included the $1,000 from our 90-day guarantee without him asking for it. Our inspectors go to other peoples homes everyday and go in their attics, crawl spaces and roofs becasuse they want each and every customer to have a positive purchasing experience. We know that wasn't the case for this client and we do hope that the client come back and have us provide the reimbursement we have offered. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/22/2025

   
  Complaint: 23355355
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Regardless of what *** has to say there is no way they can properly inspect a detached garage roof from a top of another roof that is more than 20 feet away. **** the inspector failed to document anything about the garage roof in the report. Facts are facts and *** chooses to ignore them because they dont want to pay for their mistake. This is predatory and needs to be addressed. I urge the BBB to do what they are supposed to do and protect the consumer.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******** ********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/19/2025

  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 purchased a home inspection to purchase a home. The inspector was scheduled to do inspection at 3:00. He arrived after 6. This inconvenienced the seller and I as the purchaser could not meet to discuss. I received an incomplete report. Seller stated he was not present long enough to conduct a proper inspection too. Because I was under due diligence I had limited time. I closed and now have found a multitude of issues that shouid have been caught with proper inspection. Leak in plumbing in closet. Very old leak. Faucets not working has to replace. Plumbing backing up in shower. I have filed claims within the 90 day inspection window over 2 weeks ago and cant not get a response.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/23/2025

  We are certianly sorry to hear of this client's concerns, and she is correct that the inspector was unfortunately delayed on the day of her inspection. However, the client left out the fact that she was also given a significant portion of her inspection fee refunded back to her in light of the unforutnate delay. 

  The detailed inspection report that she received does show a full inspection was properly performed on this occupied, 35yr old home. Of particular note, the bathroom section shows pictures of all of the sinks tested on the day of the inspection with water running in the pictures. The shower is also shown as tested and the water did not back-up that day. Leaks behind the walls are not visible to home inspectors and we cannot report on concealed conditions or latent defects. We would encourage the client to review her own notes and photographs from her walk-through before closing once all of the seller's belongings were removed to confirm that there was no visible staining at that time. If there was evidence of repairs to the old leak, the client should review the seller's disclsoure as the home inspection does not report on prior repairs. Her claims were reviewed and are not covered under the *** 90-day guarantee.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/14/2025

  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 filed a claim to BPG Inspection on 1/25/2025 regarding issues that I believe shouldve been identified during inspection of the home on 10/30/2024. The property was initially inspected on 10/3/2024 and action items were mostly addressed. The inspection missed two important items that should have been noted even on a visual inspection which have lead to significant damages to the property and have affected the use of my HVAC system through the winter months. There is visible damage and potential point of entry for rain water on the roof which was present at time of inspection and has lead to significant water damage on the property. Additionally, HVAC system is not in accordance with *** recommendation for HVAC system set up. *** has turned by gas off at the ***** and left service tage on both ************* The concerns were outlined in detail over several emails and calls from 2/5/2025 to 3/15/2025 along with many calls. There has been little to no correspondence from the company. My emails were never responded to and my phone calls were never answered. Eventually my phone calls would be sent directly to voicemail. The negligence by BPG Inspection, LLC has led to continued damage to my property. Without there response or even attempt to address this situation I am incurring further damage to my home and in turn increased cost of repair. I was instructed by *** to not attempt to repair any issues until they reviewed the case and made a determination. No decision has been communicated to me despite my following up. I have a well documented history of *** service tags, quotes for damages to the home, homeowners insurance claim denial due to pre-existing damage noting the area of concern, and correspondence between myself and BPG. Additionally supporting documentation can be provided that was unable to be attached here (quote for repairs, home owners insurance denial and inspection findings, email threads,etc.).

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/15/2025

  We are certainly saddened to hear of this clients concerns and recent experiences. As he indicates, *** did provide a home inspection on his property about 3 1/2 months before his issues arose in January regarding his **** system and the roof of his property. 

  A review of the inspection report shows that there were multiple "action items" in the "key findings" report regarding the **** system including the fact that the upper level system was inoperative and a qualified **** technician needed to be consulted to further evaluate the system and the remedies available. While we appreciate the frustration of hearing that PGW turned off his gas and told him the system was not in compliance. Unfortunately, a home inspection is never a report on code compliance, utility standards or any sort of regulatory matter. It is a report on the function and performance of the unit at a singular moment in time. The home inspector clearly inspected the condition of the **** unit back in October and the client really needs to review the work that was done between the time of the inspection and the time he purchased the home. As he notes in his complaint, apparently the "action items were mostly addressed" so he should be able to pull the report from the **** tech in October and then he can question them as to why their repairs were not done in a manner complaince with the appropriate code requirements. 

  Obviously we also hate to hear of anyone getting water into their home. This was a 104 year old townhome and the report shows that the inspector walked on the roof on the clear, dry day of his inspection. The inspector identified that the main roof surface had a new modified rubber roof membrane and he advised the client to obtain any warranties or other documents from the seller of the home regarding the new roof. The inspector also advised that the roof deck was not designed for foot traffic. While it's awful to hear of water getting into the home 3 1/2 months later, the recourse for that event would be through the warranty on the new roof and/or through his homeowners insurance. 

  Our records show that the client contacted our office on Saturday the 25th. We reviewed his concerns on Monday the 27th and called him back on the 28th. We did not hear back from him until 3 weeks later (2/18) and we immediately called him back and left him a message again. We do hope that the homeowner is able to find some help with the technician who corrected his defective **** system last ************ as with his roof warranty.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/18/2025

   
  Complaint: 23204390
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  
  There has been no definitive response made by *** to me on this matter. The issue was not addressed or resolved on January 27/28 as they indicate. *** mentions this was 3.5 months after inspection. My initial claim was submitted to them within 90 days of the final inspection conducted on 10/30/2024 which should have been acknowledged. My initial claim was ignored. I can produce a pdf of the email correspondence showing the lack of follow up upon request. Serval (6) calls were made to BPG between 1/25 and my next email to them on 2/13 (not 2/18 as they indicate) with no response. They responded on 2/14 saying the claim was closed. I did not receive clarification of whether I should submit a new claim or continue to provide information to that claims manager until 2/24. I responded on 2/25 with requested information. I received a call on 3/6 saying that they will call me back tomorrow 3/7 with a decision/response. Since that day I have not received any response despite multiple emails and phone calls to the claims manager assigned to the case (***** *****). 
  
  I understand inspections do not cover ensuring code compliance. However, the **** issues and more importantly the roofing concerns are apparent via a visual inspection. Per the inspection agreement, a non-invasive visual examination will be performed. Bubbling and cracking (potential flaws and points of entry water) of roofing membrane should have been flagged as an item of concern via a visual inspection. Only the fact that it was not ready for foot traffic was mentioned in the inspection. I was initially hopeful and expected a re-inspection to be performed per the 90-day re-inspection guarantee mentioned in the inspection agreement. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/23/2025

  We understand that the client is making a point about the dates of the claim because he is seeking coverage for his concerns under the *** 90-day guarantee. Unfortunately, the timing for any claim under that guarantee starts from the original home inspection date and not from any future re-visits or re-inspections on the property. However, the timing is not something that is worth fighting over here as neither the roof nor the A/C are covered for this client under that guarantee anyway. The 90-day guarantee does not cover water penetrations as the inspector cannot predict how a roof will perform under weather different from the day he was there. However, the roof installation was new so this should be covered by the company that performed the recent installation. The **** was in need of repairs in the inspection report and thus also not covered by the 90-day guarantee as that only covers those systems that were in good working order and within certain age criteria on the day of the inspection. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/27/2025

  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.

  BPG Inspection performed a Home Inspection on 12/26/2024. They followed up with the report document on 12/27/2024 (attached). The report contained 6 errors. Per ***'s instructions, a complaint was filed with *** on 1/3/2025 with the evidentiary document pointing out the 6 errors (attached). Many emails and phone calls to *** to resolve these issues resulted in no return correspondence as they promised.I would like *** to issue a document that rescind their report based on the blatant errors in their report. Otherwise, this bogus reports could adversely affect the value of the home.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/28/2025

  We certainly hate to hear of this clients concerns. As he indicates, he contacted our company and requested an independent home inspection of the property in *******. The home inspector he chose has credentials from both **** (The ***********************************) and CREIA (The *********************************************) and has been with *** for many years and performed over ***** inspections with BPG. 

  We spoke with Mr. *** back on 12/27 and unfortunately his version of events is quite different from the written documentation that was in his inspection report. The report he received remains the professional opinion of the independent inspector that he hired and we cannot edit our report based on feedback from the client as that would be unethical and improper. Irregardless of our agreement or disagreement with Mr. **** we reduce his fee in light of his frustrations and we understand that he's also sought a 2nd opinion so he can find a home inspection report more to his liking. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/29/2025

   
  Complaint: 22863565
  

  It's unfortunate that BPG will not admit to their mistakes in their inspection reports.  The 5 issues I documented and submitted to both BPG and BBB are indisputable.

  1. Tempered Glass

  BPG Falsely reported: "46. Some of the windows in the house were less than 18" above the floor and were not "tempered", or safety glass.  Because of the age of the house this is not uncommon, however safety glass is now required in these  locations, and we recommend upgrading for maximum safety..  This is simply false. The document I submitted includes the receipt of the windows stating that they are indeed tempered.  In addition, I also provided photos of "tempered" markings in the windows themselves.

   

  2. Dishwasher Airgap

  BPG falsely reported that: "49. The dishwasher drain line lacks an air-gap, which is required by present standards to help prevent discharged water from flowing back into the dishwasher should there be a blockage in the drain line. We recommend an approved dishwasher discharge air-gap device be installed..  As my document shows, my dishwasher has a "High Loop" Dishwasher drain.  High Loop drain is legal method of discharging flow back from a blocked drain line in the state of California.

   

  3. No Washer Pan

  BPG falsely reported: 53. NOTE: There was no drain pan installed under the washer. As a preventive measure, we recommend that an overflow pan be installed, and ideally routed to the exterior to prevent water damage in the event of a leak or overflow..  As my document shows with photos, my home has a built-in drain pan with a drain below the washer.  

   

  4. Cable Railings

  BPG falsely reported that: We observed horizontal railings at the interior stairwell. This could allow children to pass through, and encourages climbing. If this is a concern, then a general contractor should be contacted for modification or upgrade recommendations...  While this maybe personal opinion of BPG, cable railings are legal per city of ******* and the state of ***********  My document provides the city of *******'s ***************** code regarding cable railings.

   

  5. Loose Toilet

  BPG falsely reported that: The lower hall half bathroom toilet was loose at the floor. While no damage was evident, this can be conducive to water leakage and/or damage. We recommend that the toilet be tightened, or removed and reset upon a new wax ring if necessary. Any damaged flooring, subflooring and/or floor framing discovered in the course of this work should be repaired by a licensed contractor..  My two real estate agents are witnesses that the toilet was not loose.  In addition, as the homeowner who uses this toilet, I can testify that this toilet is not, and ever was loose.

   

  For these indisputable reasons, the only acceptable resolution to this case will be a document from *** admitting their mistakes and rescind their report.  I have contacted my credit card company to refund the $200 that BPG charged me.  If I am not refunded by my credit card company, I will also expect be refunded the fees.

  
  
  

  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** ***

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/30/2025

  In light of Mr. ***** challenge of his credit card charge, we will address this matter first with them and then proceed accordingly. The inspection report remains at all times the professional opinion of the home inspector from his visit that day. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/30/2025

   
  Complaint: 22863565
  
  BPG claims that their report is "the professional opinion of the home inspector from his visit that day" is not a legitimate statement.  The 5 issues I have reported are not matter of fact, not an"opinion". 

  -BPG claiming that my windows not being tempered is proven wrong by the evidence provided.  This is fact, not an opinion. 

  -BPG claiming that my dishwasher is not in compliance with present standards is wrong.  My dishwasher has "high loop" drain by the California building codes.  This fact, not opinion.

  -BPG claiming that I don't have washer pan for the washing machine is wrong.  My document shows the washer pan with a drain.  This is fact, not an opinion.

  -BPG claiming that Cable Railing is dangerous is wrong.  I have provided evidentiary document that cable railings are in compliance with the building codes with the city of ********  This is fact not an opinion.

  -BPG claiming that my toilet is loose is wrong.  I have two witnesses that can state as fact the toilet was not loose.  Again, this is fact, not an opinion.

   

  Unless BPG can provide evidence to refute the 5 issues I have raised, this complaint cannot be deemed resolved.

   

  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** ***

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/05/2025

  The independent home inspectors findings remain the findings from the visual inspection that day. The inspection was completed in accordance with the relevant standards of practice for home inspectors and is not subject to the improper allegations made by the homeowner. We appreciate that the homeowner has the right to have their own opinions however they are not correct as they relate to the inspection. Considering the client has gone back and challenged the credit card charge, alleging the inspection didn't take place, we cannot comment further here due to the separate escalation. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/06/2025

   
  Complaint: 22863565
  
  It's unfortunate that BPG adds on with mis-information.  In their last response, BPG states "Considering the client has gone back and challenged the credit card charge, alleging the inspection didn't take place, we cannot comment further here due to the separate escalation.".  My case with my credit card company never stated that the inspection never took place.  Instead, it states that *** reported falsehood regarding my home in their home inspection report.

  Again, the 5 issues that I report in my document, are not subjected to opinion.  The evidences that I provided are facts and are indisputable.  What BPG may consider as "their opinion" are all proven to be false by the California Building Codes and documentary evidences.

   

  In addition, search in social media would also indicate that I am not the only one dis-satisfied with BPG's home inspections: 

  ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

  Of the 11 reviews, 7 reviews are complaints of BPG's services and give the worst possible 1-star rating.

  Furthermore, one of the 1-star reviews is of **** *****, the same BPG inspector that inspected and wrote the report of my home.  The review states: "Our realtor team recommended **** ***** to perform the inspection on our home that we put up for sale. We were extremely dissatisfied with his work. When compared to other inspectors who performed the same work on the same property, we found ****'s report to be overly lengthy and extremely alarmist in language. Among other issues, at times he even criticized the style of certain elements of the home (vs. just calling out safety issues) which we felt was completely out of scope for an inspector to do........".  It seems this BPG customer had very similar issues that I had with BPG.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** ***

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/22/2025

  Type:Product 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.

  A home inspection was scheduled with BPG inspections for 11/14/2024 after receiving a quote from them promising to deliver an inspection report within 24 hours and a service guarantee which states "if we haven't met your expectations, we'll refund your fee. It's that simple." Unfortunately, the 24 hour timeframe guarantee was not met and I therefore requested a refund due to my expectation of the guaranteed timeframe not being met. BPG inspections took several weeks to review my claim, and after following up with them numerous times, they denied my claim for a refund. I attempted to dispute the charge with my credit card company, but they said that they cannot handle cases in which guarantees are not upheld. I am requesting a refund for $830.00 per BPG's satisfaction guarantee.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/28/2025

  While we hate to hear of the clients concerns, their fundamental facts are wrong. This inspection was booked on 11/9 and scheduled for 11/14 with an inspector who was the acting president of the ***********************************. He completed the inspection as scheduled and compiled the report and released his findings to the client and agent as agreed the next day. 

  11 days later, the client contacted our office with thier concerns. What the client failed to mention was that they had opted to not buy the property and their complaint against the inspection was solely a complaint about recouping their expenses on a property they didn't buy. They mis-quoted a 24hr time guarantee as their inspection agreement says that the inspector may revise the report for 24 hours after the report is released. While we certainly try to deliver reports the same day in many cases, there are any number of times where a complex or large property is going to take longer. Our focus is always on ensuring that the complete and accurate report is delivered in a prompt and reasonable manner. If the client was facing a timing crunch, there was no reason they had to wait beteween the 9th and the 14th as **** had an open slot on the 13th and other members of our team could have inspected on any of the prior days.

  We made multiple attempts to contact the buyer between the 25th and 10th of December despite the thanksgiving holiday. Our claims manager did speak **** Mr. ***** on the 10th and conveyed the same message. This matter remains closed. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/28/2025

   
  Complaint: 22845557
  
  I am rejecting this response because it is incorrect that the report was delivered to me on 11/15/24. Per the attached email (pdf version) the report was first delivered to me at 9:03am on 11/16/24 (as seen on the attached pdf). I do agree (as *** previously stated) that the inspection was performed on 11/14/24 (from 9am-12pm). This report delivery timeframe exceeds the 24-hour timeframe outlined in the attached quote. I did not accept all of the services listed in the attached quote, so the scope was reduced, and I did move the timeframe up a day as well compared to the quote, as this was all that worked with my schedule and would have been sufficient if the report was delivered in the promised and expected timeframe per the attached quote. This was a small condo inspection with limited scope, and no notification of an extended timeframe to deliver the initial report was indicated.

  This is a simple matter of BPG promising a 24-hour report delivery per the attached quote (sent on 11/7/24 at 4:29pm as seen on attached) AND promising "if we haven't met your expectations, we'll refund your fee. It's that simple." I believe I am justified in saying my expectations for report delivery timeframe were not met and therefore expect *** to uphold their promise to refund my fee as they promised they would do in such an event.

  Based on BPG's initial response, it appears they did not have the correct information regarding the timeframe of report delivery. In light of the information provided and attached proving the report was not provided within 24-hours as promised, I request BPG refund my inspection fee of $830.00.

  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/30/2025

  Mr. ******* request for reimbursement remains declined based on the previous information. To clarify any timing question:

  11/9/24 - 10:51AM - Email confirmation sent to Mr. ***** at his "**************" email address confirming the day & time & price of the inspection.

  11/9/24 - 11:10AM - Email confirmation sent to Mr. ***** at his "**************" email address confirming the day & time & price of the inspection. This 2nd confirmation noted his pay method on file.

  11/13/24 - 8:09AM - Email confirmation sent to Mr. ***** at his "**************" email address confirming the day & time & price of the inspection. This is a reminder for the inspection the next day.

  11/14/24 - 9:00AM - Inspection took place as scheduled. Mr. ***** was in attendance.

  11/15/24 - 3:34pm - Inspector sent link with the completed Home Inspection Report, Sewer Camera Inspection Report, Thermal Imaging Report, Transaction Statement & Inspection Agreement to the buyer & buyers agent.

  11/16/24 - 10:01am - ********** sent Mr. ***** another email at his request with just the Property Inspection report & Sewer Lateral Report. 

  Certainly we want to be responsive to all of our clients needs, and at the same time we are obligated to prepare the reports properly, thoroughly and completely. Had there been any issues with report delivery timing those would have been discussed at the time of the inspection when the client was present. 

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/30/2025

   
  Complaint: 22845557
  
  I am rejecting this response because it appears BPG sent my inspection report to the wrong email address at the times listed in the previous response. *** did have my correct email on file because the initial quote was sent to my correct email (per attached email quote). Evidently, *** mixed up my correct email at some point in time and this appears it may be the source of the timing issue. I hope *** can understand my frustration with this issue and accept my request for a refund as *** did not deliver the report to the correct email address on file in the timeframe promised.

  I am still requesting a full refund because a satisfaction guarantee was promised, and I believe businesses should follow through on promises they make to their customers. However, I would be willing to consider a partial refund at this point in time in order to consider the matter resolved.

  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/09/2024

  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.

  On May 5th 2024 I contracted with ********** to have an inspector come out to a property I was in the process of purchasing to do a home inspection. The inspection was very quick, being the first time home buyer had no experience with Home Inspections so I did not question the findings of the inspector. After doing some repairs on the house that I was aware of before the purchase, we moved in on the 1st of July and immediately our septic system backed up. I had a plumber out to clear the clog and he discovered roots in the septic system. I paid extra for a septic inspection and at minimum I would have expected this to be addressed. In hindsight the inspection consisted of the inspector flushing the toilet saying there were no leaks, which I don't understand how he would determine that since the pipe is buried about 2 ft Underground, and then shining a light down into the septic tank to say it looked "clean". When I informed my real estate agent of this situation he attempted to contact Seven Oaks. He was told by the inspector that I would have had to pay extra for a line inspection, which no one mentioned to me, and stood by his inspection. My agent attempted to contact the company officially by certified mail and the letter was returned as undeliverable, clearly it was just ignored. He discovered that BPG inspections had contracted with ********** to get the inspection done. With hindsight I have found at least two other issues that should have been discovered by the inspector with the plumbing, and HVAC system. The inspection was substandard and attempts to contact and be contacted by *** have been fruitless, and I believe the delay is intentional so as to guarantee the passage of time.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/10/2024

  We are certainly sorry to hear of this clients concerns and are happy to address the questions he has raised. To begin, the ***** team joined the *** team many years ago now and the two companies are effectively one-in-the-same. The inspectors continue to use the "7 Oaks" name because it has a great reputation in the local real estate community though all of the 7 Oaks inspectors are *** employees. **** was with the 7 Oaks team prior to the merger and is the senior inspector in the group. We certainly hate to hear of any clients finding problems like this and we wish they would have mailed their concerns to the address listed on the inspection agreement for complaints. We did speak with the clients Realtor whent they called our office a few weeks now so we are somewhat familiar with the concerns raised by the client.

  As Mr. ******* notes in his complaint, there is an important issue here about timing. As it relates to Mr. ********* concern, the important date here is August 19th as that was the day we were 1st notified of his concerns. More importantly however is the gap in time from the date of the inspection on May 10th to the move-in date on July 4th weekend. This property was already vacant when we performed the home inspection and we have no way to know how long it sat vacant prior to our arrival. ****** reports indicated that the timing was more than 60 days prior to our arrival. Unfortunately, it's a reasonable occurance that after a property sits vacant for extended periods of time that when the home is put back into regular use that there can be issues in the plumbing lines. Lines can dry out due to lack of usage and allow for deterioration. Waste left in the lines can also solidify and add to blockage issues.

  However the conditions that the buyer found in early July is not the issue, but rather the question is what the inspector should have done in early May. The report shows that **** was actively inspecting the plumbing during the regular home inspection and he had mulitple concerns with the fixtures and faucets in the home that required further evaluation and repairs by a licensed plumber. The septic (onsite wastewater treatement system) form that the client provided was written on the state issued and mandated form. That form documents ****** inspection of the septic system on May 10th in accordance with his licensure to do so. That report is not an invasive inspection and we cannot see the interior of plumbing lines during a septic inspection. ****** findings at the conclusion of the report were, "Tank was partly under deck and home. Not able to determine size. Tank was missing inlet and outlet inspection ports. The tank does not meet current state code requirements.Recommend a licensed septic installer evaluate and replace tank with at least 1000 gallon tank with inlet and outlet inspection port at least 15 foot away from home."

  BPG offers a 90-day guarantee as a courtesy on all of our property inspections. There is no coverage under that guarantee for Mr. ******* as the guarantee does not cover plumbing on vacant homes nor does it cover components that are reported as deficient and in need of further review and/or repairs. We would encourage the buyer to review the activities that took place between the time of the inspection on May 10th and the time of closing to determine what actions were taken to address the defects known to be in the home and in the septic system. *** did offer to coordinate a sewer camera inspection for Mr. ******* back in May, but that service was declined by the client & agent. We would encourage the client to review their files to determine if a sewer camera inspection was purchased outside of BPG's services back in May as that would have been the only way to identify tree roots in the sewer lines prior to closing. 

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/10/2024

   
  Complaint: 22259907
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/10/2024

  We understand the client is rejecting our response but he did not identify any issues that we can further respond to. We remain available to help answer any questions that he has. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/10/2024

   
  Complaint: 22259907
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I strongly disagree. The situation which was discovered in early July is directly connected to the fact that the initial inspection was substandard. I was not offered the option of a line inspection. Also, the company states that I was informed that at some point the tank might need to be moved and made larger, however the day of the inspection, **** only raise the concern that if I decided to sell the property that the current septic setup would not pass code and would have to be addressed and then only, as he said, if the other person was obtaining a mortgage as, in his words, ************* where the home is located, doesn't care as long as you're not dumping waste where it shouldn't be.  According to the report, he determined that the drain field was free of weeds and there were other issues regarding the drain field that he found no problem with. The problem is, he never found the drain field. After walking around the property for a little bit he could not locate the drain field and told me that at some point I would probably come across it. The report also States that the waste was not affecting neighboring properties. However, when I finally did find the outlet to the septic it appears that it is in a place that could drain onto the neighboring property which is something else I will have to address. This doesn't even begin to address the fact that there is a pipe underneath the home that was cut off and the kitchen sink drains underneath the home in the crawl space. Although **** did point out some issues inside the home with the plumbing all of these things were easily fixed by myself and not a matter of concern at the time. And I also would argue that there is also an inspection port and a clean out on the system as the plumber who came to clear the clog out on the 1st of July, used the clean out to access the line. **** use the inspection port to shine the flashlight down into the tank to tell me that everything looked okie dokie. Again, the time between the time that the inspection performed, and the time that we found the issue existed, is irrelevant as the home was not occupied full time. I was spending the weekends at the home doing repairs and was likely not producing enough waste to cause any issues. As far as the system setting idle and waste drying out and hardening in the lines, does not explain the presence of roots in the line. This would indicate a break in the line which would have been discovered by a full inspection which is what I thought I was getting. At no time was I told that I had to pay extra for additional procedures.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/18/2024

  Again, we hate to hear of the ongoing frustrations experienced by this customer and we do respect the fact that we're not likely to end up on the same page here.

  With regards to the new comments added by the client, yes, they were presented with the option of a sewer camera inspection at the time of the booking. The client doesn't recall this conversation because the order was booked by his Realtor on his behalf. He'd need to speak with Mr. ***** to determine why that was declined on the initial booking and why it wasn't further discussed between them. Moreover, *** also reminds every client of not just the services they ordered, but also the services they declined on every order confirmation that we send. The client received 2 order confirmations (one on the 8th of May, one on the 9th) and both of them showed the client that he ordered a Well & Septic inspection ($245) but we also asked if they he wanted to add a Radon test ($191) or a Sewer Camera inspection ($245) prior to the inspection taking place on the 10th. It's awful for a client to find roots in their sewer line, but the only way this could have been found on May 10th would have been for us to coordinate to have a sewer camera inspection take place at that time. 

  With regards to the new comments about what was said at the inspection, we obviously cannot go back and replay any conversation like that. Whenever we review any complaint however, we have to rely on what the inspector wrote, not what the client recalls hearing. The fact that ****** report explicitly reported the system as "unacceptable" and called for further review and action tells us that it's exceedingly unlikely that he gave the client a verbal "green light" on the system. Rather it is more likely that the key findings in the report were not properly acted upon between the inspection and closing and that again is a conversation between the client and the Realtor... not the inspector who wrote up the defect.

   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/06/2023

  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.

  In the process of purchasing the home, I requested an inspection and nothing came back that this property was infested with termites. Soon as I closed on the home I moved in a few later and that's when the termites were discovered all over. I contacted a pest control company (Orkin) and he stated that there was no way that the inspector missed this. It was totally infested and caused me to have to immediately vacate the home. I was unable to take a shower due to the plumbing being backed up and the stack had to be completely replaced. The inspection report stated that I would only have to ******************. I have plenty of photos and videos. The plumber mentioned that had I hooked up a washer it would have completely flooded the basement. This has caused major mental distressed and I moved out after seeking a visit to a licensed therapist.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 11/06/2023

  While we hate to hear of the distress of any client, we must respectfully decline to participate in this matter. 

  A review of our files show that this home & WDO inspection took place on a vacant home in September of '22. ****** shows that the home was sold in December of '22. The buyer's agent contacted our office in April of '23 with WDO concerns. Considering it was 7 months after the inspection, we offered to go back to the property, but the client would need to schedule a re-inspection with our office. WDO inspection reports are only good for the day of the inspection and are not a warranty of any condition. The fact that there were no signs of WDO in September has no bearing on whether or not there will be termites during the spring swarming season. The clients other concerns about a plumbing back-up in a vacant home are not surprising if the home didn't get used for many, many months. At the time of the inspection last september the shower, sinks & tubs were tested and defects were noted including an action item regarding the main drain line. A further key finding was noted regarding the washer drain at that time as well. 

  In our research to respond to this complaint we learned that the client has now listed the home again and actually has a buyer under contract according to ******. This complaint appears to be an effort to scam BPG out of money and we must respectfully decline to participate. 

  We encourage the buyer to review the activiites taken in Sepetmber of '22 to address the known plumbing defects and to determine what termite warranty was put in place on the property prior to December of '22. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/07/2023

  My House was infected with termites

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/02/2023

  Type:Customer Service 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.

  An inspector from this business inspected a property I was under contract with. They failed to find a leak in one of the **** units which was discovered shortly after closing by 2 separate **** technicians I independent hired. The first technician reported very low refrigerant, and the second one I hired found the leak. I am now left with a dysfunctional **** unit that wasn't properly evaluated by this inspection company. It will have to be replaced and I am left with a big replacement cost.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/03/2023

  While we're certainly sorry to hear about this clients concerns, he is unfortunately mistaken in his conclusions. The freon leak detection done by his **** company is far outside the scope of a home inspection. His inspection report shows that the systems were ******** inspected both in the attic and outside. The **** is tested using the normal operating controls (thermostat) and the inspector measures the temperature differentials at the supply & return vents to determine performance on the day of the inspection. Photographs show that this was completed properly and no adverse conditions existed that day regarding performance. The inspector did have an "action" item in the report regarding damage to the freon refrigerant line. He also advised that the compressors were at the end of their life expectancy and to budget for replacement or to have a warranty plan in place. He instructed the client to have the unit serviced, cleaned and in a warrantable condition prior to closing. Sadly, it appears that the client has only followed these instructions after now owning the home.

  We would suggest that the client reach out to the sellers to determine the history of **** service and maintenance. To have lost significant freon on two months would indicate that the seller may have had the unit serviced just prior to our inspection. We would never know if the unit had just been serviced, but that would have been part of their required disclosures. We also suggest the client review his paperwork from closing to confirm whether or not a home warranty program was set-up as advised or what other plans were made to address the replacement of the older **** equipment.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/07/2023

   
  Complaint: 20413928
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I have been told by several technicians/sales persons from different companies that theres a very old refrigerant leak in the electrical coil that should have been caught.
  

  There's a pan that's very rusted/dirty that's been catching the leaking that they should have seen. The condition of this pan should have clued the inspector into realizing theres a very old leak. It apparently doesnt require in-depth knowledge or sophisticated equipment to realize theres a leak. I, myself, was easily able to see this issue when I looked at the unit. 
  

  The entire system needs to be replaced. 

  Sincerely,
  
  *****************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/07/2023

  While we continue to disagree with the details of the clients complaint as he continues to identify condtions that are outside the scope of the home inspection, the conclusion remains consistent with the information provided to him in the inspection report.

  The inspector specifcally included an "action" item in the "key findings" report alerting the client to the following: SERVICE / REPAIR: A/C compressors have an average life expectancy of 12 -15 years. The compressors are 12 years old. Advise to budget for future replacement or recommend that warranty program be set up. Recommend that the unit be serviced, cleaned and returned to a warrantable condition or replaced if necessary prior to closing.

  So we're not at all surprised that the **** technican is recommending replacement of the system today as this was known to be at the end of its life at the time of the inspection. The report is also very clear that the unit was functioning properly on the day of the inspection based on the temperature differential so the home inspector has no way to know at what point exactly the unit will fail in the future, but he was clear to alert the client to the expected need to replace the system soon. 

  Again, there is a clear need to review what was done to address the action item in the report. What technician serviced the unit prior to closing and what budget / plan was put in place to deal with the imminent replacement of the unit? These are questions that the client needs to review based on thier post-inspection activities and not anything the home inspection company who alerted him to this "action" item can assist with. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/08/2023

   
  Complaint: 20413928
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  This inspection company continues to dodge blame for a poor quality and incomplete inspection. A simple glance at the air handler by the inspector would have revealed significant rusting in the pan, which implies a slow leak from the unit (multiple HVAC salesmen/techs have told me this). Further, the unit is not outputting properly cooled air. You don't need sophisticated equipment to make these assessments. These overlooked items are ones for which even an entry-level inspector should take responsibility. Anything less, and this company is trying to fool you. 

  The entire unit needs replacement. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************