To whom it may concern: I do appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions of any project that my company and technicians are involved with. In this industry, relating to mold and water intrusion issues, there are no formal State regulations governing it. There can be a large array of opinions on how to approach the mitigation of mold. Unfortunately decisions on dealing with mold and water issues can be based on quick, inexpensive, and short term fixes rather than long term solutions. Here at Ness LLC, we strive to use experience, training, character, principle, and ethic in our approach to the solutions we are asked to evaluate. Our goal is that our clients are happy with our opinions 5 years from today not just the next month to get a deal signed. We put our character, principle, and ethics behind what we say and do. Please read the following questions from the concerned parties and my responses. I have addressed the concerns to the best of my professional ability in bold lettering below. 1. “Ness Limited went into my crawl space on behalf of my buyer’s agent, in response to a pre-sale inspection. (I’ll not here, too, that the inspector is not a mold or moisture expert.)” a. Please see the attached documents for the credentials of the technician that did the visual inspections and photos of the visible conditions of the crawlspace on 9-20-13. b. Please see the attached documents for the credentials of Doug Ness; who reviewed all of the documentation taken of the crawlspace on 9-20-13 and made a determination and wrote the report of the conditions and the needed repairs to satisfy the buyers concerns and their need for a long term warranty that there would be no standing water in the crawlspace and that there would not be any visible mold or re-growth occurring that would affect the ability of her to be able to re-sell the house at a later date. 2. “Ness did not perform a moisture test or a mold test.” a. Ness was not paid for any services to visually inspect the property. Typical reports such as that mentioned is usually $300-$500. We were asked for a visual assessment of the conditions; which was done. During the process of a real-estate transaction in Idaho, the Law requires disclosure of all documents, so all of the documentation and the details of the previous inspections, testing and attempts to mitigate the existing conditions would have been made known to the buyer. b. It is evident that the previous information on what had taken place and made available to the buyer had apparently concerned the buyer enough to call Ness LLC out to do a visual inspection. 3. “Nor did they bother taking the time to check with the homeowner’s association to get the facts on the previous remediation work that had been done.” a. We were asked to address the long term issues interest of the buyer. b. We were asked to assess the visible conditions of the crawlspace. Our assessment showed that there had been an attempt to do mold remediation and mitigate the water intrusion and based on our visual inspection it appears to have failed. We understood that a certified applicator and a certified technician was not used in any of the remediation. We cannot warranty any other companies or individual work. c. We were given information on the documents of previous work after we wrote our report. That additional documentation actually confirmed our findings. (there was substantial mold growth on the decking of the crawlspace and a type of paint was applied over the visible mold residue and that the applicator missed some locations and applied it too light so the mold residue still showed through the coating.) (Actually the coating is an “Aftershock” product, but is applied and looks like a type of durable white paint.) There was no apparent mitigation of the periodic water intrusion. d. Our findings are quantified and the 3rd Party mold inspector that we use when we do mold mitigation projects has said that the visible evidence would not meet the criteria of a successful mold project nor would it pass as an adequate or successful mold remediation project. e. Granted there are other varying opinions of other professional about what is adequate remediation. 4. “Yet, they came up with an assessment (largely inaccurate) starting that $5000 worth of work was needed to remediate mold and moisture issues.” a. The investigation we did was documented with photos in which I am attaching. These photos show the history of the crawlspace. They reveal and show visible evidence of a long history of periodic standing water on the crawlspace floor. This standing water resulted in elevated humidity levels within the crawlspace, thus enhancing the conditions for mold growth. Also the visible evidence of past mold growth confirmed the assessment of water intrusion. The evidence show that there have been multiple occasions of standing water in the crawlspace 1-2 inches deep. Our professional experience shows us that just by moving a downspout; it will not solve the water intrusion issue. 5. “Another company, Summit Environmental, had performed testing both before and after Ness’s assessment (BTW, Summit has no conflict of interest; they ONLY do testing…not testing and remediation), showing that there were no live mold spores and no out of range moisture for the crawlspace. a. Ness was not paid for any services provided at the property. Ness completed this visual inspection at no cost to the buyer or seller. Typical reports, as mentioned prior, are typically $300-$500. Ness does not do testing, nor advertises testing. Ness only does remediation. b. Summit environmental is a much respected company. c. The statement of, "no live sports" is not typically stated by testing companies; rather it is stated that spores are non-viable. If a 3rd party takes a surface sample for verification on the newly painted or newly coated surface there will be no evidence of "live spores" as it is a new surface, thus the statement of "non-viable" is accurate. d. The day the testing was completed was a snapshot of that day. The humidity reading within an area, such as within the crawlspace is different if there is water present. When in fact the day water intrudes into the crawlspace (as evidence shows historical signs of) the humidity levels rise. Our concern is not what the conditions were the day of testing, but rather what the conditions will be or have been due to the water intrusion. e. There are a few ways to determine the credibility of a professionals opinion or actual work completed i. Are the professionals stating that there are no concerns at all? ii. Do the professionals warranty their work? iii. Do they stand behind their work and state there will in fact be no problems of mold or water intrusion in the crawlspace for a substantial amount of time These are just a few questions to consider when determining the credibility of a professional. Ness does stand behind its workmanship and warranties all projects completed by its employees. 6. “Ness wrote an inflammatory, non-factual report, only serving to (naturally) frighten the buyer (and ultimately fattening his own pocketbook).” a. The buyer wants to be assured that there will be no problems for at least the next 7 years. b. If you have a company that has the certifications needed, that will warranty its work for 7 years and quote a less expensive price than ours, that would be a business decision made by the responsible and interested parties. c. 40% of the projects we complete are re-doing other companies work that does not fix the problem. d. Short term solutions or short cuts in the long run are much more expensive. 7. “I have tried repeatedly to contact the owner, Doug Ness, with no response. This is, in my opinion, hardly a professional way to conduct business.” a. Ness was called out by the buyer’s Realtor. The buyer and their Realtor are our clients, not the homeowner/seller, their realtor or the Home Owners Association. 8. “Both Summit (the environmental testing agency) and my HOA completely disagree with Ness’s report and found several holes. For example, Ness’s report claimed that an epoxy had been used to in an attempt to cover up the mold. If he had bothered checking, he would have learned that it was an anti-microbial coating used to prevent future mold growth.” a. The term “Epoxy” was used as a generic term to describe a resilient durable paint type surface. Technically Epoxy is a 2 part material mix. b. The label on the container of “AfterShock” states it was a ‘100% acrylic sealant’. That too is a very hard and durable surface. c. Part of the underlying concern is that we can see what was covered up with the white sealant. The surface areas appear to have been “treated” and cover up by inexperienced and uncertified mold technicians. d. This brings up the issues on what was in fact covered up, mold. 9. “His report misrepresent most of the conditions in the crawl space.” a. All of our visible findings are verified with photographs. b. The exception is the paint was not epoxy it was an ‘100% acrylic sealant’ 10. “The Two pictures that were in the report looked like some mold was growing on the coating (and were reported to be mold by this company) were actually not, according to Summit. One spot was a knot in the wood and the other 2 spots were chipped OSB from a flooring staple. Neither was mold growth coming through the coating. a. I have attached the pictures that were attached to my report sent to the buyer and the buyer’s Realtor. They do not resemble what is stated here. This statement may in fact be in reference to the Homes Inspector’s report, not Ness’. 11. “It’s particularly disconcerting that Ness would not contact me, the homeowner, to explain his findings. Very odd.” a. Our client with whom which all correspondence was done with was the buyer and the buyer’s Realtor. Thank you, Doug Ness