GILBERT M WONG

"She called me to see if I would be able to come to her home to provide a visual inspection of some ‘serious building and structural defects and workmanships that she was concerned about’. I explained to her over the phone that I would come and inspect her home and write a non-biased report based on our findings for $300. I went to her home along with a civil engineer and spent 3 ½ hours outside, inside and in the attic page assessment report consisting of 25 items of her concerns with explanations for each item. We do not believe her home is “full” of defects that are attributed to its construction. The workmanship is not of top quality, but we did not observed any obvious evidence of defects that would indicate that her house would be structurally unsafe. Her claims were that the floors, walls and ceilings were ‘opening up’ and that they had been ‘opened up’ in a matter of weeks, days and hours. We checked walls for plumb, floors for levelness, roof and attic leaks, etc. We found that the items of concern for her are of cosmetic and maintenance in nature except for the roof tile, electrical (GFI) and gas. Further investigation would require, as it was stated to her in our report the beyond the ‘observable’ methods to expose the structure and do test to verify construction qualities which would be extensive and costly by other professionals and/or the gas company to verify ‘structural’ defects. It is our opinion that her residence is ‘safe per code as when it was built’ except for the items noted. It appears she wants a report that would accomplish her desired goal’ that her home is defective and unsafe. I did not say as she had claimed, ‘that I would assist her to achieve her desired outcome’ by falsifying the report. We cannot and will not condone such practices. She is dissatisfied and the reports is worthless in her opinion because it was not what she wants to hear. In her call of 09/16/11, she wanted me to come to her home to see the large ‘openings’ in her walls at night because the defects would be ‘more observable’. She mentioned that she called for the City of Bakersfield to send someone to take a look at her problems. She said they came out, listened to her, looked around and left. She asked them for a report. She would be willing to substantiate her claims seriously. She says that she had construction ‘experts’ who agreed with her that there are problems, yet none of them would verify it in writing. Furthermore, she had her home built. There usually is a punch list process where she would have checked-off items she didn’t like and would have had her chance at the time to have things corrected the way she would have liked. Her desired resolve to this issue is for her to have the report to be in HER favor and the money refunded. We have done the work in an unbiased manner. If it were biased, it (the report) would not hold up in court. As far as putting effort into the work for her – 11 hours, $300.00=$27.27/hr. plus this response. Our normal hourly rate is $65.00. Our fee was not based on whether she would approve or disapprove the content of the reports. It appears that her intent is when things don’t go her way, she’s would not pay for it. Her house is not how she wanted it, she wants it for free! Without prejudice Gilbert M. Wong, Architect"