Who's the Customer?

[kurt]

Late breaking news in Chicago......

A recognizable inspection business in Chicago is going to be named a defendant along with a name broker in a suit alleging fraud.

The inspection company is one of the preferred vendors that pays to play; the suit alleges collusion between the inspection company and the broker to deceive the buyer.

The initial attempt to beat the rap with their contract clause has been tossed out; the fraud allegation supposedly means there's no such thing as a binding disclaimer, and the pay to play binds the inspection business and broker together, again eliminating the disclaimer (or something like that). So, contract is out the window because the buyer "unknowingly was doing business with both parties".

Can't name names yet, but when it hits paper, I'll post the info.

[Mark P]

Interesting - So were there some big problems with the house not reported or is it just that the inspector and broaker were working together?

[Mike Lamb]

Uh-oh.

Can't wait.

[Jim Baird]

Edge of the seat.

Breath 'bated.

[John Dirks Jr]

I don't know about your local public record and their search capabilities but I do know about them in Maryland. In Maryland one can search online records for civil suits that have been filed.

On our state records, there's a "recognizable" pay to play inspection company listed as the defendant in a number of cases over the years.

[gtblum]

COOL! I hope the media understands enough about this to turn it into some sort of consumer watch dog story. As I said before, the fight starts, people get interested, and they get educated. Let's hope they make it into something.

Any chance some good citizen might give them a call and a little nudge in the right direction?