ComplaintsforSuper Team Services

• Initial Complaint

  04/03/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  We are sellng our home and the buyers hired Super Inspector. Super inspection then hired a repairman (not an inspector) to inspect the **** system. This person then told us there was a gas leak. We were doubtful because our house was just fully inspected the week before by an inspector who didn't find a leak - and we would have smelled it. Suspicious, I called the "inspector" who made the diagnosis. He immediately offered to do the repairs himself. I asked him if he were a repairman or inspector, and he said "repairman. As I'm sure Super Inspector knows, it is illegal to hire a repairman in place of an inspector and illegal for that repairman to offer their services to the house he inspected. We complained to Super Inspector. When no response came in, we hired a large, reputable **** company who we have used in the past. They did a very thorough inspection, costing $814 and confirmed what we suspected that there was NOT A LEAK. We have asked Super Inspector to reimburse us for the $814. They have refused. Telling us, of course the repairman offered his services. He has to make money. And that they would take down any bad reviews we posted. We then contacted the top three Super Inspector leaders. They also did not respond.

• Initial Complaint

  07/13/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  To whom it may concern at TREC,Super Inspectors Inspector *********************** (TREC # *****) came to my house 06/21/2023 at 2:00 pm on behalf of someone interested in purchasing my home who had hired him. He told my husband and I that he was ONLY allowed to inspect our property and not move anything, even though we offered to help move anything if needed. He then proceeded to go outside and cut a large hole across the middle of our expensive double layered flowerbed weed barrier using a knife ( We have verified with video footage we have and attached a photo from it. -Let me know and I can send video if needed.) Next he dug around in our flowerbed in pursuit of plumbing problems because the client paid him additionally to find such issues, even though there was no evidence of such issues beforehand. The inspector did not ask permission to tear apart our expensive flowerbed in pursuit of plumbing issues and failed to disclose the property damage after this was done. **** later washed out all over our weed barrier that we had installed, destroying its purpose and functionality. He left our beautiful fountain plant covered in a stack of rocks and dirt to die and it still not doing well. We reported this matter to the inspectors supervisor who then asked us to get a quote on the repair so they could reimburse my husband and I. He also verified that the inspector was not allowed to move or damage anything. We then paid a local company who originally helped us put the flowerbed together to give us a quote for repairs pertaining to the issue only. After submitting the quote to Super Inspector as asked by the inspectors supervisor *************************, we were told that the quote was unreasonable and could not be reimbursed along with consultation fee. To date, Super Inspector will not honor our estimate and only offers to pay a fraction of the cost. This will leave us to pay the difference with our trusted landscaper that uses superior quality materials and offers a warranty on work. We have not been paid anything to date by Super Inspector company and expect that our flowerbed be restored to the way it was prior to damage, not left with patches.I hope you can help me in this matter because the inspector was only looking out for his monetary gain rather than my property and this is entirely unethical. Super Inspector is only willing to pay a fraction of the amount of damage their worker caused. Please help me.Respectfully, *************************

  Business response

  08/08/2023

  **************************;asked if a bid had been placed for the repair of ******'s torn flowerbed. ****** insisted a representative from ********* give us the bid and failed to disclose there would be a $175 consulting fee. We had trusted partners who were willing to visit the property and produce a bid. During this process we spoke with a representative from ********* who agreed a patch would be sufficient, however, ****** insisted the entirety of the flowerbed be replaced. This is where we had a disagreement. We did not deem it was reasonable to replace the entirety of the flowerbed when *********** own representative agreed a patch would be sufficient. By her own admission, she told us she contacted an additional contractor to replace the entire flowerbed and their bid was only $400, which we agreed to cover the cost of compared to *********** bid of $1,255. ****** declined that offer. After multiple emails between our team and ****** in attempts to resolve this situation, she stated, "Please let us know if you are not willing to pay for our property damage that only *********** will repair, so that we can further escalate if needed."

  We were willing to let *********** repair the damage, she declined said offer and expected us to pay for full replacement limited to only this contractor.

  Additionally, *********** only designed their flowerbed and did not perform the labor to install it. It would be understandable to us to pay for *********** had they originally installed the flowerbed, however, they did not.

  Due to ******'s own statement as listed below, by our understanding, she preferred to resolve this matter through legal channels.

  *************************: "Currently I am preparing documentation for TREC, the BBB and legal. Before moving forward I would like to see if your supervisor does or does not share the same outlook as yourself. Please forward this to him and have him respond to me directly , so we know where we are at with this process and can plan accordingly. We have done what you have asked of us. We are not willing to move the the goal post as stated before, this would be unfair."

  Customer response

  08/18/2023

  I am rejecting this response because:   Of gross inaccuracies. ************************* asked me to obtain a quote for restoration of my flowerbed. He never once specified a company I was to use. If we were operating on repayment by only that means, there wouldve been no reason for me to find someone and pay for a quote. The Covingtons employee who gave us the quote spoke with ******* and informed me that she refuses to do the kind of substandard patch work they are requesting on my flowerbed, she thought someone was trying to get out of paying (we explained the whole situation to her and she understood her assignment was to only restore). Also, as you can see from my email and as further proof, I have underlined that I am NOT asking for the entirety of the flowerbed be replaced. Super Inspector representatives are saying that I have a $400 dollar quote, which is untrue. They are stating this likely because I let them know that someone from another company said they may charge as little as $400, but they would need to come out and see the damage to give an accurate quote. Luckily the company we have used before, Covingtons, fit us into their schedule instead. This was discussed with *******. I do not want to use Super Inspector and its associated vendors because I no longer trust them after damages they caused to our property and dishonest statements above. I should be able to use the vendor of my choice, as per our original agreement. Additionally, no legal has been pursued preparing documentationfor these as the correspondence states, means just that. In that same order, I will move forward if I cannot get my flowerbed restored with an honest company of my choice, that I trust. I refuse to accept the patch work Super Inspector company has proposed with their vendors. My flowerbed should be exactly as it was pre-inspection and pre- intentional damage by the super Inspector employee who took a knife and cut across our flowerbed barriers and then failed to disclose, resulting in additional damage.

  I can provide further documentation if needed to show that the Covingtons quote is not for the full flowerbed. Please *** me know what additional details you would like.

  Customer response

  09/06/2023

  Update: we have been told by the company representative that they will only fix or reimburse our property damage if we sign this legal documentation (attached) that we do not fully understand without having a lawyer. We have agreed to remove our online posts that do not slander the company in any way and just tell our story, if they agree to reimburse for our home damage. We also offered to put in our own writing that no new posts would be made, after removing our posts that shared our experience, but our offer was rejected. 

  Business response

  09/20/2023

  We have reached out to ****** several times to resolve her complaint since she last made a complaint through the Better Business Bureau.We offered to pay her exactly what she asked for in our most recent conversation which is more than she originally requested that we pay. In order for ****** to receive payment, we asked her to sign our standard release agreement that we send to any client we are issuing a refund/payment to. This agreement was drafted by our attorneys to protect us from future damages regarding the complaint as it clearly states in the attachment ****** included in her last post. ****** refused to sign the agreement unless we paid for an attorney to read it to her which we consider an unreasonable request. We are more than happy to resolve this issue with ******, but we cannot accept an agreement made in her own writing as there would be no legal merit to it. 

  Customer response

  10/03/2023

  I am rejecting this response because:   
   
  Super Inspectors recruiter ***** St.**** was tasked with communicating with me about this complaint. We only spoke a couple of times, not several. Initially, he agreed to send a check to reimburse with discussed amount and additionally agreed to add a small amount that I incurred since the claim was filed, this is true. 
  
  A resolution was in sight, until the company presented me with a lengthy legal document. I was told that I could not be reimbursed for anything unless I signed the document. The document asked that I remove BBB posts about Super Inspector, which is not possible because I have not posted anything with said company and cannot control what other companies post about Super Inspector. I explained this concern to *****. He reassured that this was a routine document that everyone regularly signs with similar complaints. I however believe contracts should be factual and accurate, therefore Super Inspector has made it impossible for me to collect reimbursement because the contract terms are impossible to fulfill and are inaccurate.
  
  There is no consumer protection in the process they have provided. As an alternative remedy to protect my family from their risky document, I have offered to write a handwritten letter to address all their concerns and sign it agreeing to remove online reviews regarding their company and not to post any additional reviews in the future as long as they reimburse for damages (because written documents ARE admissible in court.) I feel this is generous because the process does not include costs for time-from-work or attorney-fees. However, they declined this offer.
  
  The company fails to recognize what the definition of an agreement is. An agreement is supposed to be created between TWO parties, but does not have to be favorable towards only one. I proposed another route to remedy the situation by asking them to allow an attorney to the table on our behalf to reach a legally binding and accurate agreement between both parties if they preferred. I would however ask for attorney fees, because we were the party wronged. They declined anything of this nature.
  
  Lastly, I want to note that I felt pressured to sign the inaccurate legal document and especially uncomfortable after ******* comment saying things were about to get ugly in court. I definitely feel that intimidating is a tactic that has been used with multiple representatives I spoke with, possibly because I am female.
  
  Due to the occurrences above, I do not believe Super Inspector has any intention of making things right, working with us towards a remedy, or reimbursing my husband and I, preferring to go to court for some reason or to just use intimidation tactics and falsehoods to get out of paying. 
  
  It is a shame and just so ridiculous because there would be no need litigate or waste efforts of all parties in mediation if Super Inspector would just reimburse for the property damage THEY caused. It is ethically the right thing to do and they cannot do it. My experience with Supper Inspector thus far is that the company intimidates to get out of paying when they cause property damage, presenting unattainable agreements to make it look like they are doing right.
  

  Business response

  10/23/2023

  We reached out to ****** in September and offered to pay exactly what she requested. The only requirement to receive a check from ** was to remove the negative comments she made about Super Inspector across multiple websites and to sign our standard release of liability agreement. The agreement was drafted by our attorneys to protect Super Inspector from future damages regarding the complaint. It is unfortunate that she has declined to do that however, the offer still stands. We are more than happy to pay her the $1,450 she requested if she agrees to sign our standard release of liability and remove the comments she made about Super Inspector. 

  Customer response

  10/23/2023

  I am rejecting this response because:   The fact remains that their attorneys are misinformed and have asked me to specifically remove comments from the BBB website which do not exist. Super Inspector refuses to revise their document so that it is factual, which is a shame. In addition, the form is not standard because not everyone is patient enough to use the Bbb as a means of resolution and there is a section specifically discussing the Bbb. We will likely need to go to court to get reimbursed because they refuse to acknowledge their document errors allowing for reimbursement. Note:The offer still stands before legal action is needed to accept our letter acknowledging that all website reviews will absolutely be taken down if we can get our damages reimbursed. We are just asking for the company to be honest in their documentation or accept our letter. We also think they should reimburse us for damages they caused because it is the ethical thing to do.

• Initial Complaint

  02/04/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Unanswered

  More info

  We paid for a home inspection on November 6 2022. At time of inspection, the inspector noted empty rat traps in the attic. We asked him if there was any sign of rat activity, and he said there were no feces or burrows and no signs of activity. My kids heard noises in the attic shortly after moving in, and I went up and found an old dead rat in a trap. Two pest control companies came by and they said the dead rat in the trap had been there at least several months and that there were extensive burrows and other signs of a rodent problem that should have been caught at time of inspection. We contacted super inspector in January and they sent out a pest control professional, who agreed that there was a rat problem present for months. They did not offer to help pay the cost of the rat problem or refund any of the inspection fee which was over $700.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩