Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4207 Rockview Ct - Correspondence - 04/30/2000— 3 — April 30, 2000 but to resolve a dispute and that the only evidence that I had was my word that he made the statement to me that he was an attorney. They requested a complaint letter, which I sent. On April 25, 2000, that agency sent the owner of the company in question a letter asking the owner to respond to my complaint that he may have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The case number assigned by that office was OOUPL344. In addition to the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel Office, I also contacted the Fort Collins Board of Realtors (this company is an associate member) and the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI). This company is a member of ASHI. Neither organization was particularly helpful regarding this matter. Perhaps resolving such disputes is outside of their charter. My real estate agent suggested that I should contact some local attorneys and get their opinion regarding this case. I did so. I assume because of the relatively small amount of money involved, only two attorneys returned my phone calls. Both were very nice. Neither was completely sure (or unsure) whether a small claims court lawsuit would be successful. One indicated simply that "it depended on the judge." That same attorney relayed an experience he had selling his home which was similar to mine. He indicated (at no charge for his services) that, while I might win a small claims court suit, I was probably best off to just cash the $100 check. Farther, we were-growiug-tired of the-battle-autiwauted it over with. We went to 'First Choice Bank, the bank the check was drawn against on April 27, 2000 and cashed the check. We did this with full knowledge that this terminated any future claim regarding this issue forever. I can say that I was most impressed by both Climitech and Allen Plumbing and Heating, both companies licensed by your office. I was in a pretty bad situation. I explained to each company exactly what my situation was. Either company could have made a $1,200 to $1,800 sale by agreeing with the initial inspection report and saying that the furnace was leaking carbon monoxide. My options would have been extremely limited and I would have replaced the furnace, not wanting to have the possibility that, in the future, carbon monoxide might poison my buyers. I could not have lived with that on my conscience. Both companies, however, made a fair inspection and did not take advantage of me or the situation. I think that this speaks greatly to the character and integrity of the technicians, their companies, your office and the licensing and regulation process. I would recommend both companies to anyone and will use them again myself as the need arises. The inspection company's president steadfastly clings to the claim that because I was not his client, he does not owe me any money. Despite this, the $100 check described above was sent as an "acknowledgment of your concern and as a measure of our goodwill." My personal feeling is more like that this was a low -ball offer to try to dispense with me as cheaply as possible. But, again, that is my own personal opinion. In fact, the money is not really the sole issue for us, but rather that he acknowledges the mistake of his company and the financial harm that it caused us as the sellers. Whether we had legal standing to win a small claims court lawsuit we will never know. We did not feel the hassle was not worth it for what we might recover. However, I do not feel it is right that a company can come into my home, or former home, make statements about my property, which: I take great pride in maintaining, and be without liability when TWO licensed contractors can not find the problems that the inspection company listed. How the inspection company's inspector found these problems, I will also never know. My real estate agent advised against being present when the inspection was performed. Was it simply an error on his part? We all make mistakes from time -to -time. I know that I do. When I make one, I try to rectify the situation as best I can. If it is true that the inspection company's responsibility is only to his client (the buyer, in this case), I feel that this places an undue burden on the inspection company to write down anything that is the least bit questionable, rather than presenting a fair and balanced picture to the buyer. The inspection company has a fear of lawsuit if something is missed, but no equal and competitive fear of lawsuit if problems are overstated.