me in Nepean

To whom it may concern:
The particular inspection from which this complaint arose was equally funded by the complainant and the co-owner of the home that was inspected, with each paying half of the inspection fee. As far as I know the other party to the inspection was satisfied with the work done.

Both parties were present for the entire Pre-Listing home inspection, as was the listing agent. The goal of a Pre-Listing inspection is to reveal areas of concern that may arise when the home input on the market.

Every step of the home inspection was explained to all parties in great verbal detail during the several hour home inspection process. At the end of the inspection session it was explained that the written inspection report would follow, recapping the exact same issues that had been discussed. Given that I had gone out of my way to accommodate an evening inspection for the pair, I explained that it would take some time to compile the report. Both parties agreed this was fine, and immediately paid - there was no expression of dissatisfaction with my work at this time from either of the clients.

My “money back guarantee” terms are clear “ If your are not completely satisfied with our service at the end of the on-site inspection you don’t pay and are free to hire another inspector of your own choosing.”. It was only after I spent an additional three plus hours preparing the written portion of the home inspection report that the client reported having a problem. The report included a list of all of the visually observed defects plus all 143 related pictures. These were the exact same issues discussed in person prior to payment, so there should have been no surprises in the report.

In spite of all of this, I do not want an unhappy customer, and I am willing to refund the total $226.00 costs as requested by the complainant, provided that the complainant agrees in writing to destroy all documents (digital or print) that are related to this property home inspection that are currently in her possession, and that she also agrees to absolve Neil Card & Barrhaven Home Inspectors Inc. of any/all further issues (legal or otherwise) that may arise concerning the use of this home inspection report & agreement by others.

I will now address each of the complainant’s points in turn:

This home inspection service was unsatisfactory and their stated money back guarantee policy is invalid given the conditions. I am very disappointed in my home inspection experience with Neil Card.
He presented himself as an experienced and qualified home inspector, but based on his report and recommendations, it is clear, in my opinion, that he is both inexperienced and unknowledgeable with regards to building codes, standards, and building construction practices.
The conditions of the guarantee are very clear, and the client did not express any complaints I was while on site - and readily paid at the end of the inspection. At no point in the inspection was I unable to address building code issues. I am sorry to hear the customer is now dissatisfied.
He emphasized many minor, regular maintenance issues, while missing some major code infractions, such as a missing firewall in the garage on the wall adjoining the house.

Article 9.10.11.2 of the Ontario Building Code does not require a firewall between the attached residential garage and the home as is claimed in this customer complaint. Though the customer suggests other major code infractions were missed they are not stated here so I cannot comment. I did raise many serious issues with the home however, including but not limited to:
• • Apparent mould grown on the house attic sheathing due to lack of proper ventilation.

• • Damaged roof trusses in the house and garage attic’s

• • Dangerous electrical issues

• • Improperly constructed decks that are also causing serious moisture damages to the home.
•
• • Notched floor joist underneath the main bathroom bathtub.

I'm disappointed that his inspection of the attic was done from his ladder in the hatch only and yet, he had many comments/concerns to note of things that he observed. If his concerns were that great, he should have investigated the attic space in more detail.
This is customary for a home inspector as entering the attic increases risk of damaging it. The attic at the customer's home was thoroughly inspected with many issues raised, requiring followup with the appropriate experts. Entering the attic would not remove the concerns or give any resolution to them. The proper protocol home inspector protocol was followed.
During the inspection, he made clear his negative opinion about rental appliances (furnaces and hot water heaters) and chose to include his opinion in his official inspection report despite the fact that the units are both less than one year old, high­ efficiency, and include full replacement and maintenance for 4 seasons of the year. He also marked both of these on his official report as major repairs. This is both unprofessional and unnecessary.
In a Pre-Inspection Report, most sellers want to know what types of issues will compromise their sale so it is my duty to reveal this. The report simply warns people to budget for the lifetime of the appliances, and the point about the rental units comes from very few homes selling without rental furnaces and air conditioners being bought out as a condition of the sale. This is completely professional and relevant in a Pre-Inspection Report. I don’t see your point “marked both of these on his official report…” - there was only one major issue in the 1year scope selected.
His inspection consisted of pictures with no obvious notes being taken during the course of his time on the property. This leads me to believe that his report was almost entirely written from memory. I only received the final report the following evening at midnight via email. Unacceptable.
While going through the home pictures are taken of the trouble areas and an expert can look at the pictures and be familiar with the issues in order to fill out the report. The images were delivered promptly and serve as the source of the written report - not merely memory.

A few hours after receiving Neil's report, I called him to discuss some of my concerns with his inspection report, including the fact that he rated the home below average, despite 75% of the items being marked as functional or not applicable. He became very defensive when questioned about this rating as well as when I challenged his indication of a need for major repairs on the brand new rental furnace and hot water tank when it was clearly a matter of his personal opinion, not a statement of condition or functionality of the units.
Again the report stresses issues before sale that might lower the selling price of the home. I see a lot of homes and base the report on my experience with how the home looks and the number of major issues to be tackled that any home inspector hired by a potential buyer would reveal. Forewarned is forearmed. As noted the rental units will be an issue for sale.
He has a 100% money back guarantee right on his website homepage. When I asked for my money back, he stated that I was present throughout the entire inspection, and he asked how I could possibly ask for my money back when he spent more than 4 hours on the inspection and doing the report, given the extent of issues, was, in his words "a nightmare". I challenged his "money back guarantee" policy, stating that the conditions of the policy would be impossible to meet given that I didn't receive a report prior to paying him. He told me that I needed to state my dissatisfaction before he left in order to be eligible for the money back guarantee (even though I had no report to base it on). This is a gimmick. Don't believe a word of it.
The conditions of the policy are clear and not impossible to meet, as the guarantee is not based on the report, but satisfaction with the job being done on site. As noted earlier there was no dissatisfaction indicated by the client and she willingly paid on site.

I would not recommend Barrhaven Home Inspectors for a home inspection to anyone as my experience was highly unsatisfactory. Buyer beware.
I am willing to give this customer a refund given she is adamant that the report was not helpful. I stand by my guarantee approach however - I discussed in person with the clients, each and every point of the report and made myself available to do so. By the time I left the site it should have been clear to the customer what the issues with the home are, hence the money-back guarantee terms. I will reconsider this, but the current customer expressed only satisfaction throughout the inspection and raised no issues while I was on site.