Hawkeye Home Inspections and Environmental Testing

"We are surprised that this client waited a year to file a complaint. Why wait a year and why give us an F rating for something we are not responsible for? Frankly, we have never found him vindictive. So why file a complaint now? He knows that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not require home inspectors to identify nor inspect asbestos. I doubt if he hired a licensed electrician he would expect the electrician to also identify plumbing issues. Despite the fact that we do not inspect nor test for asbestos, we did file a claim with our insurance carrier with the hope that they would reimburse him for his expenses related to his asbestos concern. Our claim was denied because it falls outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regulations for home inspectors. We do agree that the response from the attorney was harsh and hostile. He stated that two contractors were “aghast”. We believe that negative comments of this sort from contractors are self-serving and certainly a way to boost their client’s ego. Most contractors have no clue what’s inside or outside the scope of a standard home inspection. All of our inspections are conducted in accordance with 266 CMR. The Standards of Practice specifically state what’s included and excluded from the standard home inspection. Most contractors are completely unaware of the existence of this document and many of them have a tendency to blame the home inspector for any issue found, regardless of whether the issue is within the scope of the standard home inspection. We did not offer to reimburse him for the inspection as it is our belief that the inspection was done in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regulations. Although we disagree with his conclusions and his decision to throw Hawkeye “under the bus”, we will refund him the cost of the inspection, if he asks."

"The amount of time we spend inspecting a home depends on the complexity of the situation. So eight months have gone by and now he has some complaints. This is the first news of his dissatisfaction. We believe it would been more helpful if [Member Name Removed] called and we could visit the property to witness his "complaints". As of this moment in time we have no idea as to why he is dissatisfied."

"We disagree with (Member name removed) assessment of the situation. He did not attend the inspection so that he could be educated about the condition of the home during the process of the inspection. This is the crucial purpose of the inspection and more complete than any written report can be. Had he cared enough about his home purchase to attend the inspection, he would have personally witnessed that the area at issue (a storage space under a kitchen) was pad-locked. A photo of the locked door was taken. We would have had no reason to take a photo of a locked door and include the photo in our report except to document that the storage area was locked and inaccessible. The photo of the locked door proves that we did not miss it. As a courtesy, we revisited the property at (Member name removed) request and did witness the damage in the storage area. The damage is so obvious once you enter the space behind the locked door that it would have been easy to see and photograph had we been given access to the space. The fact that the damage was so obvious was a strong motivation for the seller to prevent access. The “letters” that (Member name removed) refers to, claiming that we did enter the storage space, were all written by biased parties who had a vested interest in blaming The Hawkeye Companies. ((Member name removed)also sued the seller and the seller’s agent – a fact he omits from his review.) As part of the settlement to which (Member name removed) refers, all liability and wrongdoing by us was denied. If (Member name removed) thought he had a strong case, he should have sought his day in court instead of venting on the internet. The Hawkeye Companies enjoys an excellent reputation and takes pride in its work. We are highly recommended by numerous real estate professionals and real estate attorneys. Sincerely, The Hawkeye Companies, Inc."

"This letter is in response to [member name removed] complaint above. A comprehensive home inspection was performed for [member name removed] condo which was under 2000 ft.² in size. The inspection lasted approximately 3.5 hours and included a visual inspection of all accessible areas of the property. As [member name removed] mentioned, knob and tube wiring was found in the attic, even though it was behind finished materials and owners’ belongings. It was recommended that an electrician evaluate and replace the knob and tube wiring. After the inspection, [member name removed] stated that knob and tube wiring was in the basement and was readily visible, but photographs of the area taken at the time of the home inspection do not support his argument. [member name removed] is blaming the home inspector for knob and tube wiring that was not visible at the time of the inspection. Furthermore, the electrician should have checked for other circuits that may have had knob and tube wiring, as this would be professional due diligence on his part. The electrician had to have passed by what [member name removed] has described as the "visible” knob and tube wiring in the basement when he replaced the initial circuits. The electrician should have plainly seen the circuits and replaced these as well. [member name removed] complaint should be with the electrician. Furthermore the interior flues of the fireplace are not commented on or inspected at the time of a Massachusetts home inspection. These are specifically designated as outside the scope of a home inspection and are not covered or reported on. [member name removed] has reported that the flues were mentioned in the report, although clearly they were not. The information he was given was that the fireplace and the flues should be serviced and evaluated prior to first use for fire safety enhancement. This is specifically due to the fact that the flues are outside the scope of the home inspection, as stated above. [member name removed] also stated that he “guessed” the replacement or repair costs for the fireplace mantle and brickwork would be approximately $5,000-$10,000. He posted this figure without actually obtaining any concrete numbers or multiple estimates to find out the real cost, which is probably significantly lower than his estimates. As home inspectors, we usually find that the latest or most recent advice given on a property is what clients come to believe. This is known as the "Last Man Theory". When something goes wrong in a home and home buyers or homeowners have a professional evaluate it, they may be advised that this could have, or should have, been found earlier or is someone else’s fault. It may be easy to believe the professional, because they are pointing out the current problem. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time five or six months and determine the conditions of the home at the time of the inspection. Furthermore, most people do not read the initial contract which outlines the scope of the home inspection, including what it does and does not cover. Every client is also provided a copy of the 266 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations 6.00: STANDARDS OF PRACTICE, which clearly stipulate the limitations of the home inspection, especially as it relates to the flues of the fireplace and chimneys. It appears that [member name removed] complaint lacks merit and actual facts."