FARO SYSTEMS INC

Scott did the inspection of the home my husband and I are trying to buy. He was extremely thorough, detail oriented, and taught us so much about home maintenance during the inspection. He was quite personable and easy to talk to, and even climbed onto the roof to inspect the HVAC. We walked away feeling we would have spent the money on picking his brain alone, not even the great service he provided us. Highly recommended.

Professional, courteous, arrived late

From the moment Scott Chappell began the inspection, he instilled confidence through his expert knowledge, thorough inspection methods, and generosity in explaining each item and answering questions with insight and good humor. The house had many issues related to the seller's poor upkeep, and as a first-time buyer I felt overwhelmed by the end of the inspection day. Without diminishing the house's high needs, Scott remarked in his level-headed way that the issues were about the average number for an 81-year-old house and that there were positive aspects as well (good roof, HVAC, and water heater--some of the most expensive items). This helped remind me how much I like the house and neighborhood, and to think it has "good bones." Shortly after the inspection, Scott produced a clear, comprehensive report on the home, outlining each finding in detail. In addition, he kindly prioritized the needed repairs with ballpark costs. This was beyond the call of duty, as was an additional visit he made to the house to assess a joist that had been called into question during the routine termite inspection (it was OK!). All of Scott's expertise and kindness made it possible for me to enter home-ownership with a realistic understanding of issues I would and may be facing. In less than a year, I've made great progress with the house, thanks to Scott's guidance, and I will eagerly hire him to assess the next phase of improvements. I heartily recommend Scott Chappell and Faro Systems.

This review is specifically for Chris Zhang of Faro Systems. Chris was punctual, actually arriving earlier than the scheduled appointment and had went on top of the roof to begin inspecting. He was very thorough and also explained things clearly. If we had any questions or was unsure about things, he made sure to answer it. He didn't rush the inspection and made sure we were comfortable. He showed great knowledge but was also very friendly! Was not awkward to walk and talk with him. He didn't mind us following him around and asking questions. Would definitely recommend him and call him if we need anything!

Charles did an excellent job. Very thorough and informative.

unknown

He was thorough and patient. I walked with him as he conducted the inspection and was given a detailed description of what was being inspected, why, what he observed and why it was or was not a concern. As a woman I was pleased not to get the "there there pat" on the head, but instead treated as an intelligent client interested in making the best decision about one of the most significant purchases and expensive that one can make.

Excellent Service. Arthur arrived early and immediately started inspecting the outside of the property. Not only did he point out problems, but also potential problems that could become serious if not addressed. For example, there were areas that needed soil grading or there would be water damage to the house. He went every, the attic, the eves, the crawl space under the house. He checked all appliances, ran water in all faucets, checked drains and fixtures. He found no major issues, but a list of suggested work before they became major issues. He even pointed out the shut off valves in the new home.
It took about 2.5 hours to inspection a 1400 sq. foot home. The inspection began at 8am, I received a complete detailed report by 8pm. When I noticed a few errors in the report, he corrected those within the hour.

I contacted Scott and he was quick to respond and it was easy to arrange a time for the service. Scott met with my husband to review the entire house, inside and out, and surrounding landscape. He was very thorough and gave detailed advice on what should or could be fixed prior to selling our house. His services were quite helpful for us in determining any major or minor issues we should address, that could be problematic in the process of selling our house. His report was provided very quickly, and with all relevant details. I would use his services again.

Mr. Diaz conducted the inspection and stated the house was in good condition and pointed out a couple of minor issues. One week after closing, I found the roof leaking in multiple locations and after looking at my house in more detail, I found a cracked joist in the basement that was completely visible during the inspection.
I did not immediately report it to Faro as I wanted to have a couple of roofers come out and take a look at it particularly if it was a simple fix. My roofer from a reputable company I found on Angie’s List stated the whole roof should just be re-roofed as it was clearly an old roof, leaking in multiple locations, and there was nothing to repair per se. He and other roofers that I have talked to were baffled that the inspector had missed the roof issue.
I contacted Faro because the roof did not come up as an issue during the expansion. Faro states that the inspection will determine the state of the roof without any qualifiers on their website or before inspection, but Mr. Diaz did not get on the roof nor did he get into the attic. He only looked at the attic from the access point and claims he could not get into the attic because he would have had to crawl on raw insulation. In fact, there is large board to get on in the attic. He even could have determined the number of layers from the ground, but he seems to have done the bare minimum in an attempt to avoid liability and nothing more. Also of note is that he would not get in a crawl space with more than 4 feet clearance when there was no danger to him.
Faro’s explanations and recommendations left me baffled. The other two inspectors at Faro began to provide their feedback but never came to my house. Most disconcerting was Faro’s response continually changed as our discussions progressed. They also recommended not replacing the front slope which does not make sense to me as one of the leaks is on the front side, there are already two layers on the roof, and the flashing likely 30-40 years old. In addition, a partial roof replacement can be more on a square foot cost.
They also tried to blame the leaks on the back of the roof on a broken plank that was pointed out during the inspection. The problem with the explanation is the broken plank is on the front slope and cannot be causing the leaks on the back of the roof. They also complained that the roof inspection I had done only pointed out leaks on the back of the roof and around the chimney and did not specify how many where on the back. They are essentially saying I’m exaggerating my claim despite the fact I have bubbling on my wall and a brown spot on my ceiling.
I also found Faro’s ability to communicate to be difficult. For instance, when they provided me a written response to my complaint I had several questions for them. A week later, I got an email saying they wanted a roofing inspector company to inspect the roof, but did not indicate what company or whether they were insured for liability purposes. Yet they asked me to respond “ASAP”. If it had been critical for this to be done in a timely fashion they obviously didn’t show it over the week gap in communication.
Finally, Faro rough estimates on what repairs should cost appear to be little more than a guess. I have had three reputable roofers give me a cost that is 33-50% higher than what Faro guessed it should be. During the inspection, the one issues with the house Mr. Diaz had a similar situation in which he was wildly off what the actual cost was going to be on the repair by as much as five times (luckily I knew that before I talked with a contractor for this other issue first).
Faro did say they would refund the cost of my home inspection were strong-arming me by trying to have me sign another waiver saying I released them from all further liabilities on the house. When I turned it down, they sent the check anyway with a letter that did not say anything about releasing them from liability. However, under the endorsement line they wrote on the check that by signing the check I was releasing them from liability.

12/12/13 update:

In response to Faro's comment, I did allow Faro re-inspect the house and roof; at that point they actually did get into the attic unlike during the inspection, but they did not get on the roof. Many days later Faro notified me they wanted to send a roofing company to look at the roof for a third inspection, but they failed to provide the name of the company or confirm they had liability insurance in the event they fell off my roof. I told them until they provided that info they could not return. It took at least a week to get the name of the company.Although the leak was noticed the first week, Faro appears to not understand roofing. They stated the roof was only worn at 10 years and at most 15 years despite the install date of 18 years. They did not identify it was a two layer roof at all during the inspection which indicates the roof will last a shorter period. Even if Faro didn't notice leaking in the roof, they fundamentally underestimated the wear on the roof. Every other roofer noted the age of the roof. Further, Faro's advertisement indicates that the buyer will "know the state of their roof". Obviously, if they can't even note it's a second layer As for arbitration, I requested Faro provide that option, but they have not responded. Finally, Faro's inspector did not get in the attic despite the fact they would not have to be "raw insulation" nor did he get in a crawlspace which was greater than 4ft and no dangerous reason to not get into the crawlspace. The entire crawlspace is not visible from the access point.

It was a very satisfactory operation.

The FARO inspector made a serious error regarding lead paint hazards in our home. When we reported this situation to the owners of FARO, they did not accept the error and seemed to minimize the issue, despite our presentation of clear evidence including the results of a lead inspection. We were very dissatisfied with FARO's services, both because of the inspector's poor judgement and because of FARO management's dismissal of the issue and unwillingness to accept or address the mistake their inspector had made about a serious health hazard.
The sellers of the house had disclosed that lead paint was present in the house, and although FARO was not responsible for carrying out a lead inspection of the propergy, Mr. Hayes examined the windows during the home inspection and provided his assessment of their status and recommendations for managing the lead paint.
He confidently told us that all the windows looked quite safe to him and that all that was needed to manage the lead paint was to touch up the paint, apply candle wax or another lubricant to friction points, and keep the weep holes open. Because we have a 2-year-old child, we asked him about several different windows. He repeated the same advice and said that he had been a trained lead inspector for the state of Maryland and is quite knowledgeable about the subject. He explicitly said that abatement (stripping the paint) or replacing the windows was not necessary to address lead hazards. This turned out to be a completely inaccurate statement.
In retrospect, we made the mistake of following Mr. Hayes' advice when we should have had a lead inspection done before finalizing the purchase. But we were convinced by his repeated and confident advice, which he said was based on his experience as a state lead inspector.
After purchasing the house and moving in, we did have a lead inspection and risk assessment done, which found significant lead paint hazards in every window tested. Multiple experts who examined the windows advised us to replace the windows, or if that were not possible, to have all the paint stripped from the windows by an abatement company. Our realtor advised us to inform Mr. Hayes, which we did. Rather than acknowledge that his advice was mistaken, Mr. Hayes challenged what we reproted and offered the same recommendations regarding use of candle wax lubricant and keeping the weep holes open, repeating that he was trained as a lead inspector.

We informed FARO's owners in writing of the situation and the health hazard that we now faced in our home. We requested that our home inspection fee be refunded. In response, the FARO owners did not acknowledge the mistake that their inspector had made, did not express concern about the lead paint hazard we faced, and did not agree to refund the fee or to help address the situation in any other way. Instead, they defended Mr. Hayes' actions and stated that his advice was a viable option for addressing the lead paint hazards in our home. Their statement was inconistent with the 2012 HUD Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead Paint Hazards and was contrary to the recommendations of the multiple lead experts who examined our windows.
For the past 10 months we have not used the windows while we go through the process of getting permission from the county historic preservation commission to replace them. We recognize that ultimately the responsibility for checking the safety of the windows and addressing any hazard rests with us as the purchaser and now as the home owner. But as a home inspection company, FARO has a responsibility to provide accurate, informed recommendations - a responsibility they failed to fulfill in this case.
The poor judgment, lack of knowledge and overconfidence of the FARO inspector about a serious health issue is reason enough not to recommend this company. But the owners' unwillingness to acknowledge the mistake and their decision to defend their inspector's incorrect advice in the face of clear empirical evidence otherwise is even more disconcerting.
I have never written a negative review before, but given our experience with FARO, I feel a responsibility to communicate this to other potential customers.

Excellent

On time. Good report. Knowledgeable.

The inspector was very nice. He answered most of our questions.

Overall, I thought the home inspection went well at first. The inspector (Charles) was punctual, appeared to be thorough and prepared a list of items that needed to be repaired. Most of them were very minor items, such as needing two additional GFCI outlets, piping for the pressure reliefs on the boiler and hot water heater, and suggesting the gas line to the kitchen be upgraded along with the water service to the house.

However, there were many major issues he failed to find.
1) The refrigerator on the first floor was plugged an outlet in the basement with an extension cord running through a hole in the floor. $200 for a new circuit to be added by an electrician

2) the electrical panel was illegally changed from a fuse box to a breaker box without permits. In addition, the work wasn't even done correctly, the main lugs feeding the panel were spliced with electrical tape. The first visit by a licensed electrician revealed this problem. The breaker box was undersized for a home with a basement apartment, as well as the feed from PEPCO and the meter were also undersized. We were drawing 160 amps for a service rated at 100 amps. This cost over $2500 to upgrade between the new feed, meter, and breaker box. The unfortunate thing was he spent at least 10 minutes looking at the panel with the cover off and all he told us was that one circuit in the kitchen should be a 20 amp/12 gauge wiring instead of 15 amp/14 as it currently was.

3) He failed to notice the circuit powering the dishwasher was undersized, and the wiring connection in the junction box for the dishwasher caught on fire 6 months ago. $200 for an electrician to rewire, and if no one had been home to shut off the dishwasher and find the source of the smoke, the whole house could have burned down.

3) there was a leaking portion of plumbing from the first floor bathroom to the basement. $250 for a plumber to chase leaks and repair the plumbing

4) A roof leak occurred within 4 months, and further inspections to repair said leak revealed additional problems with the flashing around the plumbing vent pipes and chimney, $1500 repairs

5) the boiler for the home has significantly corroded valves and deteriorated piping. Entire valve handles are rusted off. The boiler is unable to have routine maintenance done on it. The inspector opened up and examined the boiler but never noticed these critical functional parts of the boiler. The estimate to fix these items is $1800

Overall, we feel that these are significant items that should have been identified. The inspector clearly examined every item relating to all of these problems. He assessed the electrical system, went on the roof of the home, opened and inspected the boiler, and looked at the exposed plumbing. However, every issue was overlooked and unnoticed. In the first three years of owning this home, this is nearly $8,000 of extra repairs in addition to normal wear and tear and improvements that should have been noticed by the inspector. I would gladly have made these items be corrected along with the GFCIs that were found. I would never recommend this company or inspector again based upon my experience.

The inspector was punctual and very knowledgeable. He provided a detailed report quickly to help us make any decisions for construction modifications with the builder right away. Fortunately, the report was glowing and there were only minor adjustments requested. We really like that Faro Systems suggests that new construction buyers opt for them to come out again in month 11 of the 12 month builder warranty as opposed to before settlement/move - in. This allows the owner an opportunity to address any structural and/or mechanical issues before the 1 year warranty expires. We would definitely use Faro Systems again. We really enjoyed working with our inspector, Arther Pavis

Charles Hayes was extremely professional, responsive, and patient as he explained how different systems worked, and what our expectations should be vis-a-vis what we were seeing. I would absolutely use him again; he was available for follow-up questions and cost estimates, and also provides a checklist of follow-up household activities on his website.

It was easy to set up a Saturday appointment with them, and Charlie came over at the scheduled time. He examined the problem I was having with water flow, and came up with a useful solution, including a written plan which included a list of requisite materials. He also did a general inspection of my house, and gave me some additional suggestions. I called him recently (more than two years after the inspection) for a quick opinion on another problem I was having, and he gave me some quick, but useful advice. In short, he was very professional and helpful, even when he was no longer getting paid to be helpful.

It went very well. We initially had scheduled for Charles to come out on the day of the major snow storm. We moved the inspection to 3 days later. Charles showed up early and had begun to pre-inspect. He gave us a history of the brick structure of the home and was very informative. He looked at every little nook and cranny inside and outside and gave us small tutorials about things he had found. Once he had completed the inspection, he typed out the report on his laptop and printed it out. He then reviewed it with us and the realtor right then and there. He then presented us with a bound copy of the report and any maintenance items he felt we needed to address annually, monthly, etc. He was fabulous!

I called thursday, and he was able to fit me in on a sunday afternoon. He arrived fifteen minutes early, and went straight to work providing us a very thorough analysis. He spotted a gas leak on a new water heater that needed to be fixed (!), plugged our sump pump in to work properly, and along the way he provided us with several helpful recommendations for improvements to make to the property (places we could insulate, where circuit interrupter outlets were needed, and how to go about replacing the bathroom tile, etc.).

Charles did a fabulous job of inspecting. He spent over 3 hours with us, and covered everything from the roof to the crawl space. He provided lots of helpful hints (even when they were not "defects" that the seller should correct), and told us everything in a way that was clear and understandable. The report was printed at the house, and emailed to us the next day. We had him come back to inspect some repairs that the seller performed, to be sure they were right.

Mr. Mummert spent over 3 hours inspecting every corner of this house. He is simply the first real home inspector I've come across. In short, I feel that I owe him as much as $70k he probably saved me by enlightening me as to the real status of the property.

They were great!

Our realtor recommended Arthur Pavis, and Faro had a strong rec on Angie's. Arthur was on-time, and got right to work. He is friendly and is willing to take time to explain systems and building elements. He types report directly into his laptop on site and reviews the report before he leaves. By that evening, it was in our e-mail box. One item about the house that we had both noticed did not make it into the original report, but as soon as we drew Arthur's attention to it the next day, he updated the report within hours. The inspection for both the main house and rental unit took approximately 4 hours.