LONG & SHORT: Charles gave the home we bought a negligent inspection. Refused responsibility, lied about what he did and didn't know, his staff was rude, and we basically had to threaten small claims court to get a resolution, which still took weeks longer than it should have. I don't recommend using Charles for your inspection report.
-------
THE LONG STORY:
We bought a house in Oakland this year, and Charles Mayer had been the company/person who did the pest inspection on the home. After moving in, it turned out we needed to do some roof work, and so we budgeted for some amount of wood rot that would need fixing as the roof was replaced. Our roofer - who was a really awesome roofer, Marcus from Reliable Roofing - went above and beyond and showed us a huge amount of rot that was not only up there covered by roof boards, but that would've been easily visible from the ground by a trained inspector that Charles completely failed to call out. The cost for this ended up being DOUBLE what we had budgeted for wood replacement, which was insane because we had already budgeted quite a bit for that.
As soon as we discovered this, we called Charles directly. His staff were very rude to us until they realized this was a potential litigation situation, at which point they became flustered and said he'd call us back. He phoned us about a day later, showing not a huge amount of interest in helping us solve the problem. We finally got him to come out and take a look at the situation, but the roofers had to be continuing their work since discovering this (the house had no roof!), and although we saved ALL the damaged wood and had photos very clearly showing that the damage would've been very visible from the ground, Charles was fairly adamant that since he didn't see the state of the house before the roofers started working, he basically didn't believe us that he should've found this. This, in spite of the fact that he showed us a Terminix report he had on him RIGHT THERE that day that indicated easily visible rot on that side of the house- that, the ONLY side of the house he had not indicated any rot existed.
To put this into more perspective - Charles had not poked any of the eave boards coming off the roof to see if they were stable. There were no poke holes. Charles indicated he never poked eaves that high - but this was a 1 story house. If you had a 2-3 foot pole, they'd be easily accessible, and my understanding (based on discussed with realtors and roofers) is this is a standard in the industry. Not a single poke took place. And if he had poked them, several would have just crumbled immediately. Some boards were even visibly only attached by bondo; this was a major screw job. And sure, the previous owners are the ones who did the bondo and some other terrible things to the house - but we were relying on Charles Mayer to call these things out, because we are not licensed inspection professionals.
Beyond that, Charles entirely lied to us when he said we should've called him to get him to fix the rot. He said he could fix the rotten wood without replacing the roof - something about removing the wood and sliding new wood in. The roofers we've discussed this with since have just laughed when they heard that; there is no such reliable method as he describes. You would have had to take off the entire roof to replace the boards, thereby seeing all the rot and how it was a much bigger job. But Charles attempted to downplay the situation by outright lying about how he would've fixed this rot for less money, clearly trying to suggest he didn't owe anything for his negligent inspection.
To be fair - the rest of the inspection was accurate. The problems underneath the house were noted. The problems on the other sides of the house/roof were noted. But this one longest side of the house, that had 100% wood rot on the roof, was entirely disregarded in Charles' inspection. And then when confronted with this reality, he denied. Even when he had a Terminix inspection report that he had in his hand PRIOR to his inspection that clearly said there was rot on this side of the house.
Ultimately, after weeks of insisting he did no wrong, he gave us some money to help pay for the additional costs - about 1/3 of the amount it cost us to fix the rot beyond what we had initially budgeted. I am glad he had the integrity to at least do this, but remain shocked at not only his negligent inspection report but also his refusal to accept accountability until we essentially threatened him with legal action. Completely ridiculous.
Also, he should train his staff to not get argumentative with unhappy customers; not cute.
All in all, this was at least resolved. But I don't recommend using this service for your inspection. read more