On Jul 31, 8:39*am, dpb wrote:
On 7/31/2012 7:27 AM, Evan wrote:
...

... advise anyone whom may be
relying on the report issued thus far that
the "certified home inspector" is offering
you their opinion as a person who is
unlicensed in any of the construction
trades and is otherwise barely trained...

...

I'd caution against making any claims that aren't fully supportable w/
hard evidence about the inspector or the company--that's a way to get in
the proverbial wringer if turns out it "ain't necessarily so"...

Just ask for clarification of specific deficiency and Code section(s)
supporting said determination...

--

Yes, another example of Evan jumping to wild conclusion
without any supporting evidence. Unlicensed? Untrained?
The "VAC" outlet could be a typo in the report for
all we know. Or it could mean "vacuum" as suggested
by Stormin. On the one hand, anytime anyone asks
just about anything here, like changing a light bulb, Evan
is the first one to come up with all the potential legal
pitfalls. Yet here he is advocating someone go around
spreading potentially libelous information as if it were fact.