While we were in due diligence, Charles Mann gave our house a very clean inspection (one that, on retrospect, suspiciously took only about 2 hours) and we confidently purchased the house believing it needed no structural, electrical, or plumbing work. We moved in and it quickly became clear that this was not the case. The chimneys were unlined, leaking, and deteriorating (a 7k expense for us to fix) and a number of plumbing issues (drips, etc.) quickly became apparent in the crawl space. As we fixed the plumbing, the plumbers pointed out significant electrical hazards, which we then needed to address. As a result, I ended up getting the house re-inspected and, sure enough, there were electrical, plumbing, and structural concerns that immediately arose throughout the house. The second inspector was pretty surprised that these had not been caught, as any competent inspector and/or thorough inspection should have revealed them. Charles's report is especially troubling because I even pointed out a few issues in the crawl space re: missing bricks, etc. after closing and was told that they were nothing to worry about. These issues are now on the "should be repaired" list of our new inspection report. I understand that no two inspectors will agree on what is a "must repair" and what is not, but most of the issues are not ambiguous. I pointed this out to the company and they offered to refund the inspection, but that doesn't save me the money or headache of repair.
Posted: 8/14/2015 • Link to this review
Inspector missed that our house was not on city sewer and were instead on a septic tank. Thus, he did not thoroughly inspect the plumbing otherwise he would have noticed that the main pipes go towards the back of the home, rather than the front of the home towards the street. Had we known there was a septic tank we would have had an inspection and may not have purchased the property. Jerry Schooley was the inspector for our home. The inspection date was May 24, 2014
Posted: 9/11/2014 • Link to this review
Charles Mann from Edifice did my home inspection several years ago. There were several items that were in plain site that he did not note on the inspection report. One was a whole section of flooring in the laundry room that was rotted out from water damage and was clearly visible in the crawl space. The other was a missing heating vent fan from the furnace. The inspection report also noted the filter on the furnace was clean, but only after a few days of owning the house, I went to change the filter, and it was filthy. It looked like it had been in the furnace for at least a year. The people from Edifice Inspections do a poor job and you will pay the price of doing costly home repairs if you use them. Follow Up: I received a call back from Charles, and we discussed my concerns and experience with the inspection.
Posted: 5/04/2012 • Last edited: 5/16/2012 • Link to this review
We have no record of any complaint of this type recently or "several years ago". If you are truely a previous customer please contact our office at 770-594-2222 and we would be happy to speak with you about any issues you may have had with the inspection. Without a real customer name or property address we cannot address any specific items noted here. All Edifice Inspectors inspect the accessible crawl space(s) on any home we inspect unless otherwise stated in the inspection report.
I would highly recommend Edifice Inspections. Our inspector was Jeff and he is highly knowledgeabe and very detail oriented. As a first time home buyer, we felt very comfortable with him, as he communicated effectively and looked out for our best interests. We were very happy with the inspection result and fully trust he found all the potential issues. I would highly recommend this company, especially Jeff. They are a proven company who looks out for their clients.
Posted: 12/11/2011 • Link to this review
We chose Bill because he is a recognized expert in his field. Not only does he train other inspectors, but he also writes an inspection advice column and owned a successful construction company. We are in the process of buying a home built in 1920 which we will rehab. Bill alerted us to immediate problems, potential issues and allayed our suspicions about others. His building code knowledge is impressive! He offered sound solutions, practical recommendations and even shared stories of his own rehab experiences. I learned so much during the inspection and really appreciated Bill's candor. I would call him again in a heartbeat.
Posted: 10/31/2007 • Last edited: 1/02/2008 • Link to this review
I have used Edifice Inspections for the three home purchases that I have made. They start on time and finish great. I really appreciate the extra time that Bill spent with my wife and me, bringing us through the entire inpsection process and explaining everything he found in both professional and laymens terms. Tooks lots of pictures and received the inpsection report the evening of the inspection. I have recommended Edifice to many friends who have all thanked me for the recommendation. Would I use Edifice again, absolutely, with out hesitation.
Posted: 10/27/2007 • Last edited: 1/02/2008 • Link to this review
I have known Bill Garwood with Edifice Inspections professionally for many years. Although I am in the residential construction industry, I chose him to inspect the last house we bought because of his knowledge and experience in the inspection field. I could not have been more happy with the quality of the inspection. The inspection was extremely thorough and found defects in the electrical and heating systems of the house along with anomalies in the plumbing system. Repair of these systems, of course, was costly. However the cost was more than made up by the prior knowledge given to me from the inspection process. This prior knowledge enabled us to negotiate a final price that allowed us to buy the house and feel comfortable that we'd made the right choice. I've since recommended Edifice Inspections to many of my friends and clients. All of the people to whom to whom i have recommended their services have stated that they were quite happy with the quality, the promptness, and the competence of their inspections. They will definitely be doing the inspection on our next house.
Posted: 10/26/2007 • Last edited: 1/02/2008 • Link to this review
Wasn't extremely impressed with Edifice. I went with them based on a friends recommendation and my realtor's. I found several things later that I thought should have been indicated in the report (like several thousands of dollars of wood rot). Also the inspector only spent a short time doing the inspection. To be thorough you have to spend more time. I will use someone else next time.
Posted: 10/26/2007 • Last edited: 1/02/2008 • Link to this review
Charles Mann did an outstanding job!! His inspection report helped get the items I wanted fixed. Would highly recommend to any home buyer. Great job!!! I would consider the fee to be money wisely spent. Thank you!!
Posted: 2/03/2007 • Last edited: 1/02/2008 • Link to this review
9/13/06 A friend referred me to this group because the inspector she had used several years ago is a co-owner...I had a deal that fell through, so I ended up using two from this group. The first was Charles, who I think is an excellent inspector. He is very thorough, and patient about explaining everything, takes tons of pictures. Unfortunately, that house didn't work out [on the next], Charles wasn't available. Jeff, another co-owner, came instead. He did the basic job, and he answered my questions, but he didn't take *any* pictures, and my realtor was going around turning machines on and off that he was skimming past (the dryer didn't) because he didn't check everything on his own--just a minimum few. 11/8/06 Responding to company comments--I wrote the earlier remarks *prior* to the discovery of mold in my house; the mold is *another* example of the slapdash inspection job I received. Now I have a different inspector's written statement, and another contractor's, that the extensive rotted oak beneath the mold took far longer than mere months to accumulate--"we're talking years here". 11/24/06 Recently rec'd letter from JeffN; states they have "never been successfully sued"...so some tried. The mold left extensive ($2k+) woodrot near water heater, extending over 3 joist sections, & that rot took years. See for yourselves (rotted wood with surface mold removed): http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/va2k1/slideshow?.dir=/1b0cre2&.src=ph
Posted: 11/24/2006 • Last edited: 1/02/2008 • Link to this review
My office received a call this week concerning a property Edifice inspected over 5 months ago. Upon returning to the property I discovered it was the client that wrote the above review. The problem was a leaking clothes washer that had been leaking for some undetermined time. The client thought that Edifice should warrant any damage repairs. I explained that built-in appliances are inspected but washers and dryers that usually do not go with the real estate transaction are not inspected. Edifice has always turned on these appliances when asked if they are part of the sale. It is unfair to blame a service provider for something that is not part of the scope of the inspection and that happened over five months earlier. The inspection done in April 2006 found structural, electrical, plumbing and environmental issues that could have been very costly to correct if they were found after the client moved in and had to assume all repair costs. I understand the client's frustration and hopes she follows my advice to correct the problem.
* By Appointment Only