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:07/26/2023

  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.

  On 7/20/23, a home inspection, to include inspecting the **** system, was performed on my house by Inspectology (hired by the buyer) as part of selling my house. Prior the home inspection, the **** was last serviced in 2016, and has functioned without issues until 7/20/23, following the home inspection. Later that evening the thermostat stop working, so I went out and purchased and installed a new thermostat, thinking that was the issue, however the issue continued to persist. On the morning 7/21, I call to Perry Hall ************************************ to have the **** system restored as quickly as possible. The **** tech was informed that home inspection was performed the prior day. The **** tech diagnosed and identified the issue, as the furnace panel not being properly installed, by the home inspector, fully engaging a switch resulting in a loss of power to the thermostat. The **** tech properly install the panel, reinstalled the original thermostat, restoring the **** system. The service call for the **** tech is $125. Upon completion of this work, Inspectology was informed the issue was due to their inspector, sent the **** bill and asked to reimburse the $125. Inspectology continues to deny any wrong doing on their part and refuses to pay the $125. Attached are the **** **** from *******************, the receipt for the purchase of the thermostat made on 7/20, and the return receipt of the thermostat. The receipts show two thermostats, the one that I was attempting to replace was the Honey Well for $184.00; this is the original type that I already had installed. A second thermostat was purchased (Honey Well for $69.98) as a backup, incase the **** Tech had an issue and needed to try a different thermostat.

  Business Response

  Date: 08/15/2023

  Our company conducted an inspection on Mr. ******** home on 7/20/23. The inspector performed a thorough inspection and began to inspect the furnace at 11:08am. After completing the inspection of the furnace the furnace cover was reinstalled and the system was returned to operation. The inspector proceeded to inspect the rest of the home , taking pictures of both the heat and AC after inspecting the unit. Temperature reads from multiple ducts in the home were taken over the course of the next hour. 

  As a company, we inspect the furnace prior to running it in order to ensure functionality prior to leaving the property. I have attached time stamps of when the furnace was inspected as well as our follow-up showing that the system was functioning prior to us leaving the property at 1223pm.

  On July 24th Mr. ******* emailed us demanding that we pay $125 for the diagnostic fee. The **** company came out to the home to find that the door on the furnace had come loose and tripped the safety switch. Mr. ******* threatened us by concluding his email with:

  "If you have not responded within 48 hours that you will pay the ************ fee. I will file a lawsuit in Small Claims Court to recover. I will call the HVAC Technician as an expert witness to testify that the home inspector had not properly reinstalled the access panel including tightening the fasteners to specifications".

   

  We reached out to Mr. ******* and informed him that at the time of us leaving the home, the system was functional and had been working for over an hour. The way this system is designed is that the top panel covers up the lower panel which engages the safety switch. There are not any "suggested" specifications for tightening the s**** to our knowledge and the top panel would have had to come off to release the lower panel from the safety switch.

  When the buyers agent notified us of the issue on the 21st, we offered to come back to the property to diagnose any issues and the client has already called a company to address the issue and we were not given the opportunity to address the issue.

  We understand that Mr. ******* was likely frustrated that his HVAC unit stopped working after returning home, however his aggreseive email threatening legal action was not a good start to productive conversation.

  Inspectology would have gladly been part of a productive verbal conversation however our company policy when threatened with legal action is to revert to communicating strictly though written means of communication. Unfortunately this is not as productive and we conveyed to Mr. ******* that the system was working when we entered the property and when we left the property. Unfortunately what happens after we leave is outside of our control as home inspectors.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/16/2023

   
  Complaint: 20375340
  
  I am rejecting this response because: It's unacceptable for your company to presume no responsibility/fault for the issue resulting from negligent action of the employee, which was confirmed by another party.  Saying that you are no longer responsible for any issues that arise from the work performed after leaving a jobsite, is unacceptable. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *******

  Business Response

  Date: 08/17/2023

  The invoice from the **** company says that the "inspector  left door off". The photos we have of the unit now only show that the door was on, but that the system was operating as intended. The way this system is designed is that the top cover goes overtop of the bottom cover which keeps the switch closed so that the system can operate. Many of times have companies even tape this switch because they are often faulty and the smallest movement may render the system inoperable. This is why we fully test the system after taking the doors of the unit which is why we provided photos of the system working prior to and after the doors were removed. If the door was "off" according to the HVAC technician, we have documented that they were on when we left and the unit was operating at the same temperature as it was when we arrived. I'm not sure how a third party could assess this and we had offered to come to the property but didn't hear back from Mr. ******** representative and then the email demanding repayment was sent.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/21/2023

   
  Complaint: 20375340
  
  I am rejecting this response because: it's clear this process will not result in the desired outcome. It's extremely disappointing and unethical that you continue to not accept responsibility. At this time, it seems reasonable to pursue alternative means to be compensated for the service cost and time spent to achieve a satisfactory resolution to this issue.
  
  
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/16/2023

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  Status:

  UnresolvedMore 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.

  Inspectology was hired for our home inspection. We paid for 2 out buildings to be inspected as well in our agreement. I contacted the owner to let him know that the pot filler wasn't working. He came to look at it and at the time I had an appliance company on-site repairing and doing diagnostic on the ice maker, wine fridge, microwave, and dishwasher. ****** said at the time that these items were covered under our warranty. I was not aware of this. He kindly said, typically they like to use their own people but to send him the bills and he would cover the cost of the repairs, minus the diagnostic. I was so appreciative. The dishwasher hadn't been addressed by the appliance people on site and so he sent one of his vendors out to diagnose and repair that and he paid them direct. Many emails, phone calls, texts forwarding the invoices for reimbursement ended up in an email saying there must have been a misunderstanding and he would not reimburse me in total for the expenses. I never heard back from him regarding the pot filler, which I paid for our of pocket to repair. And he in fact did not inspect it. The final issue was the potting shed. He was paid to inspect it and did not do it. The roof had damage, the water damaged the dry wall - about $3000 to repair the shed. ****** was extremely unprofessional and unresponsive as I persisted to resolve the issue. He stopped returning calls and emails and sent one of his employees to the house to resolve the issue. He too was very unprofessional, late, not prepared with any of the details regarding the issue, not even a pen or computer in hand to document our discussion. Promised resolution and disappointment with ****** and the company for not adhering to the company mantra of ******************** Inspectology refunded the cost of the inspection but did not cover the cost as they promised or for the shed which the never inspected but paid to inspect.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/29/2023

  When the client called about issues she was having after moving into the home, we went to the home personally to determine what issues they were having. A list was provided by the client (photo attached). She said she was having issues with these items and that they were "clearly missed" during the inspection.

  1. The microwave was functional at my reinspection of the property. Every 4th-5th time you tired to open the microwave via it's open button, the screen was slow to react. I explained to the client that hitting the button 5 times is outside the scope of the inspection. At the original inspection it opened, closed  and cooked as intended.

  3. Outlet was repaired onsite by me. It was a tripped GFCI that I reset. This was clearly tripped after the inspection as the home was occupied during our initial inspection.

  4. Pot filler. The Pot filler was tested at the inspection and it worked as intended. The client apparently had this fixed but never provided information as to what the problem was.

  5. Ice maker was operational at the time of the inspection and a photo of the full ice maker was provided to the client. Sometimes between the inspection and moving in, something happened which we cannot control.

  6. **********. The dishwasher was not in our report as tested so I sent out an appliance technician to fix the issue.

  7. There was nothing wrong with the potting shed roof. A gap in the flashing caused a leak which came into the potting shed and created mold. Unfortunately as an inspector we cannot control what happens after the inspection.

  8. The client has been in contact with our insurance company and has signed an agreement to settle this issue. The client has violated the agreement and our insurance company is in contact with the client regarding any further communication or actions.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/11/2023

   
  Complaint: 20195900
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I am forwarding documents for you to review as the information that Inspectology provided was not accurate. This has the receipt for the out buildings/potting shed that were not inspected. A picture of the water damage in the potting shed from the roof that was leaking.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******** ***********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/19/2022

  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.

  Good Morning, the following is to report an house inspection company and their lack of due diligence. Monetary compensation would be appreciated and needed, but this is being reported to prevent other veterans from being taken advantaged of at the bare minimum
  
  We bought a home in April 2021, our first home. Brickkicker was hired to inspect the home to be bought and was paid $500.
  
  Day one of moving in had sewage back up issues and required 6,000 to repair the plumbing.
  
  We addressed the minor repair notation of moss growing on our roof by paying a tree company 2,500 to trim the trees to prevent any damage in March 2022. This was not needed since the underlying issue of the roof being installed improperly was the cause of excess water left on the roof so moss could grow.
  
  In September 2022 with the major rains, we had a roofer inspect and repair for leaks. Within two seconds the roofer noticed the roof had been completely installed wrong and not just had minor repairs made as stipulated by BrickKicker. Roof shingles were installed too high and not even placed in some areas of the roof. Soft spots and holes due to no plywood being installed under the shingles were immediately noticed. The total for roof the repair was 16,000. This is vastly different than what was proposed by BrickKicker and was vital in the home inspection and home buying process they failed to complete with any thought to professionalism. This knowledge could have halted the sale or allowed for negotiations on compensation.
  
  When contacted for resolution we were told it is ultimately our fault for believing them and ignored.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/25/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 17, 2022/10/13) */
  My name is Eric *****. I am the Operations Manager for Inspectology, formerly Brickkicker of Greater Maryland. I was under the assumption that I was dealing directly with Ms. Madsen, however, the one time I was able to reach her directly, she was on vacation. I have called her two additional times and left messages with no returned call. I would also like to note that she has not contacted our office directly about this issue but stated that she called the inspector repeatedly. After a meeting with our inspector, he stated he had not received any communication for Ms. Madsen, or her agent, who is a very well respected and a frequently serviced client, both of whom pride themselves on their follow up. As a veteran owned business (Mr Bird is a Marine Corp veteran who served in active duty overseas) we would have welcomed the opportunity to address these concerns directly with the client.
  I am happy to communicate with you regarding this issue and to discuss how we believed that our inspector provided accurate information for the client with the suggested follow up steps. This home inspection was performed on 3/22/2022 at 1:00pm, by our inspector Mark Kahan. As a home inspection is a visual inspection of the property, at the time it is performed, it is a snapshot in time of the condition of the house. The state of Maryland requires an inspector to follow a minimum standard for inspecting and to make referrals on the information that they collected when doing the inspection. With regard to the roof, our inspector recommended that the client contact a qualified roofing professional to address the moss issue. The recommendation was made in March of 2021 and apparently, according to the complaint it was not addressed between 8 months to a year after the inspector noted the issue. When an item is noted on an inspection report, specifically having to do with roof or basement or moisture readings, it is common to address it as a priority with the seller or to have a licensed professional (specialist) in that field to come out and assess the full nature of the issue. In the inspection, it appears that our inspector noted several comment worthy points. Photo 4.1.1 notes the following:
  
  MOSS BUILD-UP
  In extreme cases, the moss will grow under the shingles damaging the underlying sheathing. If possible, remove or cut back any trees that may be causing excessive shade. To remove the existing moss, use a roof cleaner targeted at moss growth to adjust the PH level below that which moss flourishes (e.g. spray and forget). Moss grows in a shady or wet environment with specific PH levels. Recommendation: Contact a Roofing Professional.
  REPAIR NOTED
  The roof has been repaired in one or more locations. We recommend consulting the seller for any documentation regarding recent repairs.
  
  There were 2 additional notes regarding the chimney and its installation with recommendations to consult with a licensed professional. These items were noted in March of 2021, and according to my phone conversation with Ms. Madsen and the documents she forwarded over, were not addressed until 9/16/2022. I have attached the pages to both the response complaint and to this email. Please let me know how else we can be of assistance.
  
  
  Consumer Response /* (3000, 20, 2022/10/14) */
  (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
  Good Evening,
  
  I would like to refute the claim of non response and repair information. I deployed the following month I bought the house and believed that we had a few months after I got back to do our due diligence on getting three quotes from roofers. We were under the impression we could trust an inspector with roof experience and from a company veteran owned. We had the flashing inspected as recommend to take care of that repair before any bigger issues appeared. However all three inspections stipluated the roof shingles were all insalled a half inch above each other. Meaning leaks were happening all over the roof and it justed depended which way the wind was blowing. That is a simple visual check that was sorely missed since it was the entire roof not a few spots here or there. Please refer to the inspection report by Carroll County Roofing for photos and verification. I have responded both to Mark and Eric and received no response or such a delayed response I am not sure what is occuring. Please refer to the screenshots of email traffic for verification. I am military as well and as such the lifestyle causes delays but it does not excuse using the name of veteran to lie to your own. Please respond as requested in writing from now on so there is documentation for verification.
  
  
  Business Response /* (4000, 22, 2022/10/18) */
  Good Afternoon Ms Clay:
  I am concerned that this conversation is deteriorating into a he said/she said scenario. In order for there to be no gaps in communication I would like to continue all communication to come through your agency. I reached out to Mrs Matsen directly after I received the response regarding the BBB complaint. I was thus informed that she was on vacation and she would contact me when she returned to town. In the interim I requested she send me what she had from her roofing company and her inspector regarding the roof. I received the one document I forwarded to you which was the one estimate she had from The Carroll County roofing company. Per her request, I waited for what I felt like was an appropriate timeframe for her to return from her vacation and reach out to me so we could move forward with our investigation of her concern. I reached out to her via phone more than once to her number and left a voicemail each time to request a timeframe within which it would be appropriate to discuss the issue. I received a return call after several days and several messages apologizing for the delay. You'll note in her screen capture that I made multiple attempts to reach her as acknowledged in screen shot XXXXXX. I was prepared to pose the questions to her once she returned from her vacation and was not sending them in an email, until much later when she informed me she had returned. All of these discussions were done in a timely manner as requested and directed by Mrs Matsen.
  With regard to the home inspection I would again refer to the home inspection report, and the standards set forth by the state of Maryland for home inspection, that the inspector noted that there was an obvious repair done to the roof and that the buyer, in this case, Mrs Madsen, should consult with the seller to inquire about the roof and the plumbing. The client did not request a sewer scope which would have provided her with a warranty to cover the issue she was concerned about in the report we have the following photo with the following recommendation
  
  Drain, Waste, & Vent Systems: Sewer Line Limitation The condition of underground drainage and waste piping cannot be determined by this inspection unless a sewer line camera inspection is performed. WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE CLIENT MAKE AN INQUIRY WITH THE CURRENT OWNER AS TO THE CONDITION OF UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE AND WASTE PIPING AND IF THERE IS ANY HISTORY OF SEWAGE BACK-UPS INTO THE HOME. (copied directly from the inspection)
  
  With regards to Mr Kahan's roofing expertise, he was there in a home inspector capacity. He is not a roofing specialist and would not deviate outside of his role and counter his inspection assessment to assure a client that the issue did not need attention, and then put into the inspection that it needed to be addressed. It is in writing what Mr Kahan's suggestion was and due to Mrs Matsen's deployment it was not addressed in a timely manner. Obviously as Mrs Matsen was on deployment, she may not have been able to address anything pointed out in the home inspection, however Mr Matsen was available during Mrs Matsen's deployment. We would have been more than happy to work with either of the two of them to come to a resolution or to explain any questions they may have had regarding their inspection. I would again reinforce the fact that the inspector performed within that standards directed by the state of Maryland and has done his due diligence. With regards to referrals, requested by Mrs. Matsen, Mr Kahan is also not a licensed plumber and making referrals to assist with their plumbing issue is outside of his scope. Please reach out if you have additional questions or need additional information.
  
  All My *****
  Eric *****
  ********** Manager
  Inspectology(XXX)XXX-XXXX(XXX) XXX-XXXX x *********@inspect-ology.com www.inspect-ology.com ******* ** , ************ ** XXXXX
  
  
  Consumer Response /* (4200, 24, 2022/10/19) */
  (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
  Good Evening,
  
  I am happy to continue conversation attempts through this forum. I seem to be getting different information posted here by the company in question than what has been discussed on the phone or through the communication through text and email. Issue one; I must again refute claims I have been unreachable. I have sent texts and email with available time for phone calls. I have had a conversation with Eric twice, the last time he said it was too late to have conversations despite hime stating lateness is not a factor in text message when I explained my work up schedule would have late hours. The call was 1800. He stated he would send over questions by Monday the latest after the initial contact I had with him. He waited two weeks to respond here and not the client with the requested questions. They seem to be continously conducting delay tactics yet push the blame of actionable discussion avoidance onto the client when I have been able to respond within 24hrs of every request vs his week long turn arounds. Our last email message was a full timeline of events since he was too tired to go over it on the phone.
  Issue two; no discussion of a scope was offered however the inital plumbing issue was verbal gurgling. As a new home owner they seem to be taking advantage of lack of experience to hide behind basic checks not being conducted. Again the gurgling pipes and electrical faults happened immediately and not intermittently as we fought with Mark to even acknowledge there might be an issue and if it was covered by the 120 day warranty we were told was part of the inspection. When w were told by Mark they wouldn't be able to cover those types of issues so we asked at least for information of good contractors in the area. We were ignored then gaslit about phone conversation and still not provided information, just a blurb that we could ask for the information we already requested multple times. Similiar delay tactics as being seen now. This is seen in the email traffic provided prior and was provided to Eric as well.
  Issue 3; all issue encountered were not covered in the inspection. Please see screen shots attached of the inspection report. They use a color coded system to bring attention to areas you should be aware of blue low level. Yellow request more information, and red immediate attention. Notice the things Eric keeps points out are the be aware or keep an eye on it. Not actual remediation. And this issue I have been trying to get help with are not even mentioned. Eric seems to be hiding under the vague warnings of consult real inspectors later and not the fact that the inspector did not notice shingles were installed incorrectly, just patched recently, the gurling in pipes with every use, the inside electrical faulting not the outside gci that is inconsequential, and that the eaves had no underseathing with patches of shingles not going fully under the eaves. Eric also clings to the fact that Mark is not a roof inspector and only a genral inspector despite their website bio touting his roofing experience. An announcement on Facebook pages so glad they have an inspector to bring roofing knowledge into their tool kit. This is the marketing we bought hook line and sinker. I am simply requesting a warning be put out about this company and that all persons who wish to deal with them make sure every aspect of the inspection is backed up by a licensed contractor since they do not follow their own standards of declaration.
  "I. The inspector shall inspect: A. the exterior wall-covering materials, flashing and trim; B. all exterior doors; C. adjacent walkways and driveways; D. stairs, steps, stoops, stairways and ramps; E. porches, patios, decks, balconies and carports; F. railings, guards and handrails; G. the eaves, soffits and fascia;...."
  
  
  Business Response /* (4000, 27, 2022/10/20) */
  I appreciate Ms Matsen's frustration, however I believe I have addressed the 2 issues she has brought up that she is concerned about. I wish her all the best. I have no additional information to add to a rebuttal.