|
Review content:
Initial Termite Guy inspection was performed in conjunction with the purchase of our home. The inspection revealed areas of drywood termite and dryrot damage. Inspection included a $1340 bid to repair/replace the damaged areas. This was agreed to and paid for through escrow. Repair work was performed in the absence of the home owner, but signed off by the Termite Guy inspector. Two months later, home owner had the home re-inspected by a third party, only to find that the damaged areas were never repaired by Termite Guy, rather they were just cosmetically treated. This was an egregious act of misconduct. Termite Guy was called to have the repairs actually performed. The team arrived and completed the repairs. Three days later it became evident that one of the repairs was not performed correctly. An outdoor patio rafter was replaced, but was not toe-nailed in to the joist, allowing it to warp, bow and begin to separate from the joist. Also, the top of the rafter was never properly sealed with primer and paint (provided), leaving bare wood exposed to the elements. This is completely unacceptable. Termite Guy had to be called yet again to complete the repair correctly. Overall, this home owner feels taken advantage of, since if a separate third party inspection had not been paid for and taken place as part of a pest control maintenance contract, I would have paid $1340 for work never performed, and would never have known it. Additionally, once the work was subsequently performed, it was not up to standard and required rework. Unfortunately, I am unable to recommend Termite Guy going forward. This homeowner feels completely justified in requesting his $1340 be refunded.
Matt
RESPONSE FROM The Termite Guy:
To REPAIR or REPLACE: that is the point of contention.
The Termite Guy and IRC Services performed an escrow inspection for the seller and found areas with MINOR damage. According to The Termite Guy inspector's professional opinion, the damage noted in the fascia and rafters was minimal and did not warrant a replacement; therefore, the recommendation was for repairing the areas noted on the report.
The third party inspection commissioned by the new homeowner recommended to replace the same areas. In light of the differences in professional opinions, The Termite Guy, with due diligence, opted to replace the same areas to satisfy the customers request. In regard to the joist, The Termite Guy returned to the property and corrected the oversight according to industry standards.
After reading this review, The Termite Guy engaged in telephone correspondence with the wife of the current homeowner. According to her, all work The Termite Guy had performed was satisfactory and there was no demand for a refund.
|