# For those doin inspections......



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

More added to your plate for the $5-$10 you get LOL! http://www.housingwire.com/articles...ns-over-the-new-gse-property-inspection-forms


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

"Compensation has been based on these basic factors."

For what they want inspections done for, it should only require you to slow down to 25mph on your way by the house.

They're worried about being able to provide structural issues, etc? Like an actual inspection that I would provide to my customers? If that's the case, and they want E&O, etc., they're not going to be getting any of it for anything near where they pay. Unbelievable. I still shake my head every day when the building industry is seemingly SO regulated, and the P&P industry is so wide open- and they wonder why they have issues?


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

ALL Inspections should be done by a licensed/certified Inspector PERIOD.


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

Wannabe said:


> ALL Inspections should be done by a licensed/certified Inspector PERIOD.




good luck on that one, who's paying for this?


----------



## AceVentura (Sep 6, 2015)

madxtreme01 said:


> good luck on that one, who's paying for this?


Madxtreme you need to figure out how to understand whats happening here.

The end result will be people not understanding being recipients of the donkey punch,

Your attitude leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe you are excited to receive the donkey punch:vs_worry:


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

no, I don't think it is as simple as that. These inspections are done monthly. To perform that thorough of an inspection on a monthly basis is impossible. Send a preservation crew out to do it correctly and then an inspector to see if it visually got worse. Visual inspections can't be held liable for underlying issues.


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

These nationals/regionals WANT a P&P vendor held responsible for ANY issue with the house whether or not they are licensed inspectors or not. Not always because they want to screw someone, but ALWAYS because they do not want to be left holding the bag.

I don't think it is cost effective to have a licensed inspector do a monthly inspection either, but if they are going to hold someone financially liable for the inspection they make, they need to have inspectors who know what to look for do them, not a dude with a flashlight on his phone. The issue is, the nationals and regionals especially- are more interested in shifting the blame off themselves than actually having a meaningful inspection done. The meaningful inspection should be the first inspection before anyone else messes around in the house.

This inspection thing is one aspect of this industry that really needs attention. You can't have Flashlight Dude do a walk through, then have a licensed inspector do another inspection before closing, then hold Flashlight Dude responsible for all of the stuff he didn't even know what to look for. It isn't really ethical in my mind, and it's not even necessary in most cases. The problem could resolve itself in most cases if there was a meaningful licensed inspection done at teh inception of the P&P process. Unfortunately, for the prices they pay, Flashlight Dude is the only guy that will do them. I won't touch them- I have too much time and money tied up in obtaining certification in a state that doesn't even require it. (Michigan)

If whomever was running the freaking show really cared about the homeowners or the houses, nothing in this industry would work like it does right now, but we all know that.


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

Joe,

Spot on! I have a $350 inspection today at 10am in a foreclosed home for the buyer. The National has asked to purchase the Inspection Report from me (I will need permission from buyer since I will be working for them). I wonder why they want to purchase? 

I think we know that answer.


----------



## safeguard dropout (Apr 21, 2015)

Wow. That is some crooked crap.

I have absolutely 0 knowledge of the inspection side of the business so maybe a couple dumb questions...

How does the national get the name of the company doing the final inspection if you are working for the homeowner?

How much is Flashlight Dude liable for? Say he misses something simple like a small roof leak? Something major like structural damage? Does the national then go after Flashlight Dude's E&O insurance? Who's pocket would the E&O money eventually wind up in?


----------



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

safeguard dropout said:


> Wow. That is some crooked crap.
> 
> I have absolutely 0 knowledge of the inspection side of the business so maybe a couple dumb questions...
> 
> ...



Wannabe, Tell the story about the deck collapse......


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

Exactly- the deck collapse story answers all...


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

I have been in this business since 2008 and have never been held responsible for not reporting something on the inspection side. Key is to make sure your pictures justify what you are reporting. If you can't prove a condition was different at a different time, then you could be held liable. For example your small roof leak reference. If there is no visible damage from the inside or out, you can't hold the flashlight dude liable even if you zoom into his pictures and see a shingle missing. Occupancy inspections are just that. If it isn't obvious damage, then the inspector isn't qualified to mention it, however at the same time, if the preservation crew missed it and took pictures of that area specifically with damage visible but didn't report it, then they could be held liable. I have yet to have a claim, but I guess I've been lucky.


----------



## AceVentura (Sep 6, 2015)

madxtreme01 said:


> I have been in this business since 2008 and have never been held responsible for not reporting something on the inspection side. Key is to make sure your pictures justify what you are reporting. If you can't prove a condition was different at a different time, then you could be held liable. For example your small roof leak reference. If there is no visible damage from the inside or out, you can't hold the flashlight dude liable even if you zoom into his pictures and see a shingle missing. Occupancy inspections are just that. If it isn't obvious damage, then the inspector isn't qualified to mention it, however at the same time, if the preservation crew missed it and took pictures of that area specifically with damage visible but didn't report it, then they could be held liable. I have yet to have a claim, but I guess I've been lucky.


This propaganda machine rocks, you just cant stop it. :vs_cool::vs_cool:
When will bot Mad Extreme #1 Implode?


----------



## GTX63 (Apr 12, 2012)

We pulled up to a 5 year old house last winter to see water gushing under the siding, forming an iceberg in the yard. Pipes broke on the 2nd floor and pouring into the basement for days. 70+k bid in repairs. The inspector had turned in 6 straight "Occupied" reports and the guy had been gone since spring. My understanding is that every penny for the damages came from the pockets of the woman who did the drive bys and her carrier.


----------



## Craigslist Hack (Jun 14, 2012)

madxtreme01 said:


> I have been in this business since 2008 and have never been held responsible for not reporting something on the inspection side. Key is to make sure your pictures justify what you are reporting. If you can't prove a condition was different at a different time, then you could be held liable. For example your small roof leak reference. If there is no visible damage from the inside or out, you can't hold the flashlight dude liable even if you zoom into his pictures and see a shingle missing. Occupancy inspections are just that. If it isn't obvious damage, then the inspector isn't qualified to mention it, however at the same time, if the preservation crew missed it and took pictures of that area specifically with damage visible but didn't report it, then they could be held liable. I have yet to have a claim, but I guess I've been lucky.


How many times have you Netted 6 figures since 2008 doing inspections?


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

safeguard dropout said:


> Wow. That is some crooked crap.
> 
> I have absolutely 0 knowledge of the inspection side of the business so maybe a couple dumb questions...
> 
> ...


 
The National found out from the Broker since the Bank has to allow permission to perform an "outside the P&P Business" inspection. Many of the foreclosed properties are "as is" BUT the buyers lender still requires an inspection unless its a cash buyer. 

I think this will turn out bad for the Winterize crew since we found mold throughout the finished basement. The P&P Crew missed a "home built" in-floor radiant heat system that had busted and leaked all over. The Winterize was in 2014 done by Cyprexx and a refresh in 2015..... The in-ground Pool was not winterized as far as we could tell and the Heating unit for pool was split and the piping across the ground from basement to pool was busted. 

Deck Story

Short version. Our contractor was doing a initial secure on a beautiful home with the deck piers sinking into ground causing the 2 story deck to pull away from the house. Our contractor called from site, took a 1000 pics, put safety/caution tape all over the inside sliding glass door, installed 2 2"x4" across the outside ground level stairs along with caution tape. Called the National and told them of the safety hazard and to review our estimate of repairs asap. They looked at the pics and all the safety/caution postings and said they will submit to approval. 
Meanwhile a couple weeks later another contractor who was doing a walk through removed the caution signs (is what we found out in the Discovery hearings) and the Drive-By Inspector who never got out of the vehicle never reported the deck falling off the house. 

A Broker walked out onto the deck and it collapsed causing broken pelvis, 2 legs and the poor fellas back. Of course he sued. 

The Inspector took the brunt of the lawsuit since "An inspector is held to a higher standard of knowledge and expertise". The contractor who removed the signage lost a proportional share. We lost due to having to pay our $5000.00 E&O Deductible for Legal representation but did not have any liability in the claim. 

It explains why Inspectors are paid so well! They are held to a higher standard of knowledge and expertise!! :vs_no_no_no:


----------



## safeguard dropout (Apr 21, 2015)

Wannabe said:


> We lost due to having to pay our $5000.00 E&O Deductible for Legal representation but did not have any liability in the claim.


That sucks, you did everything right and still had to spit out 5k. Seems you should be able to go after the inspector for your deductible since he was found liable....no?


----------



## safeguard dropout (Apr 21, 2015)

Craigslist Hack said:


> How many times have you Netted 6 figures since 2008 doing inspections?


55 inspections per day at $5 each, 365 days a year will GROSS $100,000... I will guess 0.


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

safeguard dropout said:


> That sucks, you did everything right and still had to spit out 5k. Seems you should be able to go after the inspector for your deductible since he was found liable....no?


Lol.. Probably could have but I'm sure it would have cost $10k to recoup the $5k. Our legal system is busted too.


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

Wannabe said:


> The National found out from the Broker since the Bank has to allow permission to perform an "outside the P&P Business" inspection. Many of the foreclosed properties are "as is" BUT the buyers lender still requires an inspection unless its a cash buyer.
> 
> I think this will turn out bad for the Winterize crew since we found mold throughout the finished basement. The P&P Crew missed a "home built" in-floor radiant heat system that had busted and leaked all over. The Winterize was in 2014 done by Cyprexx and a refresh in 2015..... The in-ground Pool was not winterized as far as we could tell and the Heating unit for pool was split and the piping across the ground from basement to pool was busted.
> 
> ...



Funny thing is that a lot of inspections vacant or not do not require an inspector to do a walk around of the property or an interior inspection. Most nationals have to order the inspection as such in order for an inspector to get out of the car. As long as it is reported vacant, sometimes that is all that is required. I don't know the story in this case, but you would be surprised what the walkthrough vs vacant exterior is. I would say only 20% actually request an interior inspection. If the property is a no contact or a bankruptcy, we are unable to step foot on the property, but the preservation crew can. Go figure.

Also the comment about the 100k a year, I don't do much inspections anymore, I have 2 people that work for me doing the local area and that's it. If preservation is slow for a few days I might go out and do some to keep me busy, but that's about it.


----------



## safeguard dropout (Apr 21, 2015)

madxtreme01 said:


> Also the comment about the 100k a year, I don't do much inspections anymore, I have 2 people that work for me doing the local area and that's it. If preservation is slow for a few days I might go out and do some to keep me busy, but that's about it.


Did you not see the GTX post about the drive by inspector? The entire point is this; If you're doing anything with risk you better be banking big. These $3-$6 dollar inspections are minimum wage at best and carry 70K+ liability if you're wrong. How is this a good idea? Same thing with $40 wints. Dumb. And then hearing Nationals are purchasing final inspections for the purpose of screwing the unqualifieds that they hire......tomorrow Mr. Maidxtreme, I would give thanks you have not yet received the donkey punch.


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

This is a thread that should really end up as a sticky. Then when a new member signs up, send it as a required read...


----------



## thanohano44 (Aug 5, 2012)

JoeInPI said:


> This is a thread that should really end up as a sticky. Then when a new member signs up, send it as a required read...



Lol not really. The newbies tend to know it all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

safeguard dropout said:


> Same thing with $40 wints. Dumb. And then hearing Nationals are purchasing final inspections for the purpose of screwing the unqualifieds that they hire......


I've heard this too- and I don't know if many know this yet either. This, to me, will be the next big collapse in this industry for vendors that do not _*get*_ this industry. Too many vendors are NOT contractors, and they think that if you get paid for a job, you're all clear. Not so, and it is going to blow up in a big way for this exact reason.


----------



## GTX63 (Apr 12, 2012)

JoeInPI said:


> Too many vendors are NOT contractors, and they think that if you get paid for a job, you're all clear.


This is very true and a core reason why Nationals have no respect for them.


----------



## Craigslist Hack (Jun 14, 2012)

madxtreme01 said:


> Funny thing is that a lot of inspections vacant or not do not require an inspector to do a walk around of the property or an interior inspection. Most nationals have to order the inspection as such in order for an inspector to get out of the car. As long as it is reported vacant, sometimes that is all that is required. I don't know the story in this case, but you would be surprised what the walkthrough vs vacant exterior is. I would say only 20% actually request an interior inspection. If the property is a no contact or a bankruptcy, we are unable to step foot on the property, but the preservation crew can. Go figure.
> 
> Also the comment about the 100k a year, I don't do much inspections anymore, I have 2 people that work for me doing the local area and that's it. If preservation is slow for a few days I might go out and do some to keep me busy, but that's about it.


So since 2008 how much money have you Netted? From inspections?


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

Craigslist Hack said:


> So since 2008 how much money have you Netted? From inspections?


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

I would say about 400k


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

This week for me:

Met adjuster and realtor at house with serious water damage (I estimated $64,000 in Ext and Interior damage). Adjuster was the Subrogation adjuster representing the poor drive-by inspectors Insurance policy. They are agreeing to pay the depreciated repair amount of approx $35,000 and the difference is responsibility of the Service Company (SG or vendor) thus SG will try to get $64k of work done for $35k. 

Next: met 2 adjusters at house where adjusters argued who was responsible for missing the collapsed sewer line to the street.....inspector or contractor? It was settled 50/50. $14,000 total split $7700 each (gotta pay the adjusters fee). 

The 2nd case just floored me. My input was how the heck would either IC know of a collapsed line? Reply was "the investor who purchased home has litigated and it's more cost effective to settle". Here's an inspector and a contractor both being railroaded by their Ins Carriers. 

the scam is only getting larger imo


----------



## Wisconsin (Nov 9, 2015)

Wannabe said:


> Next: met 2 adjusters at house where adjusters argued who was responsible for missing the collapsed sewer line to the street.....
> 
> I'm curious as to what question was on the inspection sheet that said sewer at the street was to be inspected. ( I don't do these inspections just curious) Arnt inspections just a visual .


----------



## JoeInPI (Dec 18, 2014)

It doesn't matter. If you sign off, you sign off. It's no different than saying "I looked at it, but must have blinked when my eyes crossed over that connection, so I'm not liable." Yes, you are- you're small fish, and thus you're fried. That's the whole point of the crash of this industry. No big fish will EVER get caught with a bill, as it will all flow downhill- and now they're crafting procedures to make even more money off the vendors and their insurance companies, while limiting their exposure AND maximizing their profits at the same time. It would be brilliant if it wasn't pathetic.

Heck- most of the time, these companies say it's just a drive-by to make the rate seem even remotely possible. You'd never do a full inspection for that, and then how would they shift the liability from themselves to you? They just shifted liability to you for- what- $3.00? F'ing brilliant! The inspection isn't even about having an inspection done. It's about having someone who doesn't know any better do an inspection for them, so they can shift the liability. For three bucks. Insult to injury.

How many vendors have signed a "contract" with a regional or national that shifts the burden of liability to the vendor for ANY issue for ANY reason, even if the regional or national or whomever sent the contract, even if it is their fault? More than you know. If you're not sure, I'd suggest you go back right now and check your contracts, you probably have a special surprise waiting for you- you and your insurance company are most likely liable for absolutely everything, no matter *who* is/was at fault...


----------



## GTX63 (Apr 12, 2012)

Wannabe said:


> thus SG will try to get $64k of work done for $35k


My laugh for the day.:laughing:


----------



## cover2 (Apr 3, 2013)

madxtreme01 said:


> I would say about 400k


so you grossed north of a million since 2008?


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

cover2 said:


> so you grossed north of a million since 2008?


you do realize that 2008 was 7 years ago right? I have inspectors that do the work for me while I focus on preservation, but there are times I do complete inspections, and for almost a year my wife did inspections full time which netted us $6-7k a month


----------



## Ohnojim (Mar 25, 2013)

*That's the point I would have to sue my*



Wannabe said:


> This week for me:
> 
> Met adjuster and realtor at house with serious water damage (I estimated $64,000 in Ext and Interior damage). Adjuster was the Subrogation adjuster representing the poor drive-by inspectors Insurance policy. They are agreeing to pay the depreciated repair amount of approx $35,000 and the difference is responsibility of the Service Company (SG or vendor) thus SG will try to get $64k of work done for $35k.
> 
> ...


my insurance company, and see if it's more cost effective to settle with me. My record of never being successfully sued is important to me. I'm not paying their deductible, because they made a business decision to my detriment, with no basis in any finding of fact. 

So many people are just happy they are covered, I expect to be defended, and i will be.


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

Ohnojim said:


> my insurance company, and see if it's more cost effective to settle with me. My record of never being successfully sued is important to me. I'm not paying their deductible, because they made a business decision to my detriment, with no basis in any finding of fact.
> 
> So many people are just happy they are covered, I expect to be defended, and i will be.


That my friend is why those pesky P&P Companies require being listed as additional insured on your insurance policy. It's hard to sue "yourself"


----------



## PropPresPro (Apr 12, 2012)

Ohnojim said:


> my insurance company, and see if it's more cost effective to settle with me. My record of never being successfully sued is important to me. I'm not paying their deductible, because they made a business decision to my detriment, with no basis in any finding of fact.
> 
> So many people are just happy they are covered, I expect to be defended, and i will be.


Agreed!

It's called "breach of good faith" and insurance companies get sued for it often. Usually when they deny claims that the insured has a reasonal expectation of being cover for, or when they attempt to assign blame where it doesn't belong - especially back onto their insured. Very, very seldom do insurance companies NOT settle good faith lawsuits, they are costly to defend & it's bad press.


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

Actually it is called bad faith" but is very rarely successful in suing insurance providers. You have to prove their actions were malicious, oppressive and fraudulent. As long as the carrier has a claim reported and they adjust that claim in a timely manner it is no longer malicious so it would fail the "bad faith" requirements. 

Moot point though. When the P&P company requires the additional insured rider then in effect your policy is also theirs. 

I am contemplating to represent a new client (landlord) who leased a 100,000sf warehouse and the tenant was doing electronic recycling. Warehouse is now contaminated with $1mm worth of lead, mercury and other hazardsous byproducts. Landlord required the additional insured rider so that tenants policy is a part of the landlords coverage umbrella. Landlord will file claim under tenants policy without permission of tenant. The recycler will be put out of business since no Ins Co will ever write them another policy. 
The additional insured rider/endorsement is very powerful and every contractor should make an informed decision before agreeing to sign the dotted line.


----------



## Wisconsin (Nov 9, 2015)

JoeInPI said:


> It doesn't matter. If you sign off, you sign off. It's no different than saying "I looked at it, but must have blinked when my eyes crossed over that connection, so I'm not liable." Yes, you are- you're small fish, and thus you're fried. That's the whole point of the crash of this industry. No big fish will EVER get caught with a bill, as it will all flow downhill- and now they're crafting procedures to make even more money off the vendors and their insurance companies, while limiting their exposure AND maximizing their profits at the same time. It would be brilliant if it wasn't pathetic.
> 
> Heck- most of the time, these companies say it's just a drive-by to make the rate seem even remotely possible. You'd never do a full inspection for that, and then how would they shift the liability from themselves to you? They just shifted liability to you for- what- $3.00? F'ing brilliant! The inspection isn't even about having an inspection done. It's about having someone who doesn't know any better do an inspection for them, so they can shift the liability. For three bucks. Insult to injury.
> 
> How many vendors have signed a "contract" with a regional or national that shifts the burden of liability to the vendor for ANY issue for ANY reason, even if the regional or national or whomever sent the contract, even if it is their fault? More than you know. If you're not sure, I'd suggest you go back right now and check your contracts, you probably have a special surprise waiting for you- you and your insurance company are most likely liable for absolutely everything, no matter *who* is/was at fault...


You would think that if the insurance companies have been forking out all this money or knowingly putting themselves at risk they wouldn't be quick to allow the additional insured option. They do it for free.


----------



## Ohnojim (Mar 25, 2013)

*That my friend, is why I'm on my way out of this*



Wannabe said:


> That my friend is why those pesky P&P Companies require being listed as additional insured on your insurance policy. It's hard to sue "yourself"


[email protected]% Show, altogether. Clients with the open ended work orders and free or trip charge inspections are about all gone now. 

That is also why I have my own lawyer. I'm sure we can think of an angle.


----------



## PropPresPro (Apr 12, 2012)

Wannabe said:


> Actually it is called bad faith" but is very rarely successful in suing insurance providers. You have to prove their actions were malicious, oppressive and fraudulent. As long as the carrier has a claim reported and they adjust that claim in a timely manner it is no longer malicious so it would fail the "bad faith" requirements.


In the suit I have personal knowledge of, the action was titled "Breach of Good Faith". Paralegal research before that suit was filed turned up multiple thousands of case files, all less than 5 years old, and although I can't remember the exact percentages, the majority of those cases were either judged in favor of the plantiff, or settled out of court. The fact is, good faith litigation against insurance companies is not that rare, especially in instances where victims or insureds attempt to negotiate settlements with unscrupulous insurance companies without experienced representation.


----------



## PropPresPro (Apr 12, 2012)

Ohnojim said:


> Thats the point I would have to sue my insurance company, and see if it's more cost effective to settle with me. My record of never being successfully sued is important to me. I'm not paying their deductible, because they made a business decision to my detriment, with no basis in any finding of fact.


 


Wannabe said:


> That my friend is why those pesky P&P Companies require being listed as additional insured on your insurance policy. It's hard to sue "yourself"


 
I think Ohnojim was referring to suing his *own* insurance company for breach of good faith for choosing to pay a claim based solely on 'cost effectiveness' with a blantant disregard for whether he was liable or not, and then try to force him to pay the policy deductible. 
In this instance, Ohnojim would not be suing himself as part of an 'additionally insured' clause, he would be suing his insurance company.


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

PropPresPro said:


> In the suit I have personal knowledge of, the action was titled "Breach of Good Faith". Paralegal research before that suit was filed turned up multiple thousands of case files, all less than 5 years old, and although I can't remember the exact percentages, the majority of those cases were either judged in favor of the plantiff, or settled out of court. The fact is, good faith litigation against insurance companies is not that rare, especially in instances where victims or insureds attempt to negotiate settlements with unscrupulous insurance companies without experienced representation.


FYI. In the Ins world it is Bad Faith. There is a huge difference. Bad faith refers to an Ins Co not fulfilling a contractual obligation. An Ins Policy is a contract. As a Policyholder Representative/Advocate I can tell you Maybe just maybe 5% of Bad Faith suits are allowed to proceed into litigation. 

Breach of Good Faith refers to reasonable or fair trade dealings. Insurance is contract law. 

Maybe some States interchange the terms but none that I know of. Been involved in a couple Bad Faith suits in the Big Sky State and same laws as others pretty much. 

Either way it's a rotten deal to a contractor


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

PropPresPro said:


> I think Ohnojim was referring to suing his *own* insurance company for breach of good faith for choosing to pay a claim based solely on 'cost effectiveness' with a blantant disregard for whether he was liable or not, and then try to force him to pay the policy deductible.
> In this instance, Ohnojim would not be suing himself as part of an 'additionally insured' clause, he would be suing his insurance company.


I understood what Jim was saying but IF the Insured turned the claim in or if the Insured accepted liability to a claim then you cannot sue yourself for already accepting liability. 

What you have to understand is what an Additional Insured is. The AI can be construed to be a supplemental Named Insured without the right to make policy changes. In some policies (CPL policies especially) the AI can continue paying the premiums even after a named insured stops paying premiums or tries to cancel the policy. It's fascinating how Ins Policies work for a Ins Geek like me


----------



## Ohnojim (Mar 25, 2013)

*I think they key would be to sue before*

anyone accepted anything, since I am the primary insured, this wouldn't just happen in a vacuum. 

There are some steps in the process along the way, where I could file for relief, or injunction. I'm not pretending to know the details of those steps, but I would certainly look into it. 

After the fact, I also doubt there is anything I could do. 

Hopefully my decision to limit exposure to certain work order types will make the point mute, before any company tries that scam on me.


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

Amen brother. Just another scam that this P&P business has evolved into. I just told a P&P contractor Friday how much I used to like the business. Call me naive but I still hold hope that better days will return.


----------



## PropPresPro (Apr 12, 2012)

Wannabe said:


> Amen brother. Just another scam that this P&P business has evolved into. I just told a P&P contractor Friday how much I used to like the business. Call me naive but I still hold hope that better days will return.


Yep, I agree too.
Still, to every newb of the month we are all just jaded & grumpy old 'so called veterans' who are trying to block them from getting their piece of the preservation pie, instead of trying to help them.


----------

