FIRST CHOICE HOME INSPECTOR

Lou was on time and explained the process of a home inspection to my husband and I- who are first time home buyers. He was very thorough in his work and explained his findings in terms we could understand. His rates are very competitive and he is a great guy to work with. HIs home inspection report was sent electronically to us just a few hours after the home inspection was completed. He includes pictures in his reports so that issues are clearly marked. We would use him again in a heart beat!

Mr. Buehler came recommended from my real estate agent so I initially didn't check Angie's List for reports.  I am glad I didn't check because I may have been hesitant to use him.  My experience with Mr. Buehler was very positive.He showed up a few minutes early and got right to work.  The home to inspect was a Short Sale home that was not maintained at all.  There were a lot of issues with the home and Mr. Buehler was very detailed and informative in his feedback.  He had a genuine interest in the inspection process and made sure I was aware of the issues that I as the future home owner needed to address.  Initially, he quoted me a price that included additional tests.  Due to damage to some of the plumbing, he determined that the tests should not be performed as more damage could occur.  He spelled out the reasons not to do the tests and did not charge me for those tests.  If he did not have this integrity, he could have continued, possibly damaging the house and collecting the full charge that he initially quoted.  As I was following him during the inspections, he received some phone calls from other clients and seemed genuinely interested in providing solutions and answers to the questions they were asking.  He wanted to make sure his clients were well cared for. The detailed report was emailed to me the next day and he even had additional conversation with my real estate agent.  I was very happy with my experience. 

My initial reaction to the performance of this company was positive.  They came recommended from an area realtor.  I hired this company, and was initially pleased by what appeared to prompt and thorough service.  However, my opinion changed 7 months later, when began utilizing the furnace for the winter.

In October, we realized that once the furnace ran for more than 10 minutes, the breaker would flip causing the unit to turn off.  Upon multiple inspections from heating and air companies and electricians, it was deterimined that 100 Amp electric service is insufficient for a home heated with an electric furnace with all electric appliances.  This seemed like something that should have been identified in the home inspection, so we reviewed the report that was provided.  Upon further review of this report, we realized that the report identified the furnace as Gas Forced air, when in fact it was Electric forced air.  Furthermore, the report identified that the electric service for the house was 200 Amp, when in fact it was 100 Amp.

Per the terms of the Inspection Agreement, we notified Mr. Buehler, the proprietor of First Choice Home Inspector, that we were having this problem, and would like for him to reinspect prior to us having any work completed.  We also shared that we believe First Choice was liable for the lowest cost to update the services to sufficiently heat the house.  He responded simply by stating the cost of the inspection, that he would be unreachable for two weeks, and that he needed copies of every document from the purchase of our house (which have no bearing on the fact his report was incorrect).

After several emails back and forth, Mr. Buehler finally agreed to reinspect the house.  He stated he could come any day of a specified week at 8:00 am.  When I responded with a preferred date, he claimed he could not be there on that day.  He did come later that week on November 2, 2010, and was very unprofessional.  The first thing he stated was, "I made you a lot of money on my report."  To which I promptly inquired how he made me money.  He indicated that I should be grateful to him for identifying that the house needed a new roof as well as several other repairs.  I then thanked him for performing an adequate job on inspecting those particular items, but pointed out that those are independent of the errors that were made in the report and that if he believes he "made me money" on the report, that he fails to understand the purpose of a home inspection.  During this reinspection, Mr. Buehler acknowledged that it was in fact not a gas furnace, and that an examination of a gas furnace would have been more extensive than he performed during the initial inspection.  He also acknowledged that the electrical service to the house was not 200 Amp.  He stated, "I may have made some errors on the report and probably did."  He refused to discuss in any detail the errors of Electric versus Gas Furnace and 200 vs 100 Amp electrical service.

Mr. Buehler was observed intently while he performed the reinspection.  He removed more panels from the furnace this time than he did during the initial inspection.  While he performed some of his tests, one of the two electical breakers were in the off position.  So, there is no way he was able to get an accurate read on the tests of the furnace this time, either.  He also stated that he reviewed the photos from his initial inspection, and that he identified that the furnace was on a "double tapped circuit" with the main line for the house.  The inspection report did identify a double tapped circuit as a "Repair" item.  I am not the professional, but tapping the electrical service directly to the main line to the house does not sound very safe to me.  I would imagine it should be classified as a "Major Concern/Safety Hazard," but this was not identified at all in the report as tapped to the main line.

I informed Mr. Buehler that I was having electricians and heating and air companies provide evaluations and estimates to remedy the problem, and that I expected that he provide funds to cover the lowest cost estimate.  The State of Indiana requires home inspectors to carry errors and omissions insurance, so I thought he would submit a claim and this would be put to rest.  However, he quickly approached me and got right in my face.  He stated that he performed a quality inspection and he was not going to pay for anything.  He continued by stating that he was not going to pay anything to me or file a claim with his insurance.  Finally, he stated that if I wanted to persue this that I better "take my gloves off" because he was going to fight.  I felt very threatened by his approach, and asked him if he was finished.  He said he was, so I told him that I looked forward to hearing from him with the results of this reinspection.  When Mr. Buehler left the inspection, three breakers on the electrical panel were discovered to be left in the "off" position.  Luckily, I knew to go back through after he left to ensure things were working properly.

On various dates ranging from October 5 to October 28, 2010, three licensed electricians and two heating and air companies were contacted to provide opinions and estimates regarding the electrical service for the subject property.  Every one of them stated that the electrical service for the house was insufficient for the demands of the house, and the the two remedies were to upgrade the electrical service to 200 Amp or to have a gas furnace installed.  The lowest cost estimate for the repair was to upgrade the electrical service at a cost of $1,967.  This amount was requested from First Choice Home Inspectors on November 12, 2010, along with copies of all of the reports.

On November 17, 2010, we sent another request to Mr. Buehler, as he had not responded to any correspondence since the reinspection.  It was requested that a report be provided summarizing his findings of the reinpection.  He responded by stating, "I do not issue follow up reports without being hired to do so.... Your request for any payments are denied."

This left us no choice, but to persue legal action to recoup our damages.  We spent several hours researching case law to determine if we would be successful in court.  After determining that we should prevail, we filed suit against this company and Mr. Buehler.  Throughout this entire process, multiple settlement offers were delivered to First Choice Home Inspector and Mr. Buehler, and not one was even acknowledged.  As the hearing date approached, my wife went into early labor and our child was born.  Suddenly, this was no longer my primary concern.  So, when I met with Mr. Buehler's attorney we were finally able to reach a settlement that agreed that no party was admitting fault.

The rates this company charges would be fair, if they actually had any value.  I would not recommend hiring this company.  If you decide to hire them, I suggest you hire an attorney to ensure you are 100% covered because this company, nor its owner, provide quality work and will attempt to dodge any responsibility for their errors.

Several other errors were identified, but would not be deemed material if not for the gross negligence identified in the above narrative.

We also discovered through additional research with the State of Indiana that Mr. Buehler's license was obtained by being grandfathered.  Th

He missed some details.  He did mark some cracks in the foundation and he did say that it was more than normal and needed to be evaluated by an engineer and repaired immediately. He didn't see and didn't tell me that there was a problem with the wall which another inspector had told us. In the basement halfway up the wall and three quarter way up the wall they built a cinder block wall and they painted it. It looks like the foundation.  If you go down further and look behind it, between the foundation and the cinder block they put bricks in there.  It was weird for an inspector not to find that when I was able to find it. I was getting ready to close the house and I started seeing moisture on the wall. Its painted in such a way to look like the foundation but its only three quarters down the wall. If you look behind there is the brick. The other company said that he should have been able to catch it. They told us the foundation behind it was crumbling. When they put up the wall it was just like a temporary thing and they didn't address the moisture in it and now because of that there is mold in the house. The whole thing would have to be torn down and the house jacked up and re-pour the whole foundation wall and this inspector did not catch it. I was able to catch it but he was not able to do catch it.  In the picture he points above the wall that they built and he noticed the crack but he didn't say it anywhere in the report. He said there were some cracks but he didn't point out this cinder block wall was built half way up to hide the foundation. He didn't look behind the wall to see that the bricks were in there to keep the foundation from falling in. I am very disappointed.  I got lucky as there was some paper work in the closing. I went there one more time and I seen moisture coming in and there was mold on the floor joints everywhere and that's when I noticed the wall. As an inspector he is supposed to see what I cannot see. He took a picture of a crack about it and he didn't say anything about the temporary cinder block. All I would say is that he didn't do his job.  If I had bought that house and put money into it, it would have been free falling to the ground. I was told that it would take $30000 to redo the house and jack up the house. Apart from that there was plumbing also involved as plumbing had to be lifted up and also electrical. I am lucky I caught it before I bought it. There was another thing to it. When you go into the house you can get mold smell because the house was built in 1920 and it also had a fire place.  He said he was able to smell mold from small spots coming from the floor but it was not that. The whole wall behind the fireplace was filled with mold and he never pointed it out. If he was able to smell that strong mold then he should have inspected a little further. Two spots on the floor will not make the mold smell so bad. He missed all the mold and the foundation and that was ready to fall in. He missed where there tried to cover it. If he had looked behind that wall he would have seen that. I am very disappointed. I am happy the paper work didn't go through and I didn't sign for the house. I caught it before the house closing.  He should have been a better inspector and found out from where the mold smell was coming from. He found out a few things but the most important things were missed. He didn't take us to the basement and show us the foundation.  He wore a mask and he still didn't tell us that there was a possibility of mold behind the fire place and chimney. He just said a couple of patches which could be cleaned. He was there on time.

Mr. Buehler "the owner" was very, very thorough and honest, revealing several major problems with the house beyond the normal wear and tear one usually encounters. He went in the attic, the crawl space and up on the roof, spending three good hours at my prospective home. I would definitely use him again.

Lou Buehler was very quick to respond when I first called him to set up the inspection. On the date of the inspection he showed up early and got straight to work. He was very informative about what he was doing and what he was checking for during the entire inspection. He also gave me helpful hints on how to fix some of the problems. He was more than willing to stop and explain why he was checking particular things. He also provided me with my report on the spot and went through the entire report with me before he left.

Lou is a nice guy but he performed less-than-average work. He caught basic problems that any home inspector would, but he missed several others that he should have caught. Multiple repairmen made comments about being surprised that the inspector did not catch the problem. More effort,e.g. turning on a faucet, and Lou would have discovered the problems. The plumbing problems were obvious and he missed them. When I asked for a partial refund, his response was that I should have been present at the inspection. If he is that unsure or unconfident about his skills, he should have turned down the job. Apparently he would have done a better job and given a better report had I been present for the inspection. He also missed foundation, electrical, and additional plumbing problems. In short, we thought his work was lazy and were really disappointed; not only his work but his attitude when confronted about his poor performance. Instead of addressing what he missed, he focused on what he did catc