No Ethics here

:frowning: Please be very wary of doing any business with Omega Property Services (OPS) doing HUD inspections in any state. Their home office is in Eden NC. Mike Hoffman or James Alexander may contact you and try to get you to do inspections for them.

Be advised…There are five of us now in legal proceedings trying to collect back fees. They will work you for a short period of time, hold back your money initially for one month then just stop paying you. Sorry to have to bring this up but I’m out $8800.00 and that was for just one and a half months worth of work. We all worked for them for about six months before they began being late with the payroll. They then went from late to default. They have other lawsuits in the mill as well. Take care.

Mike Whisenant

They have begun doing inspections in southern Miss just recently. Probably should alert the P & P in Miss to let them know who they hired.

Mike: Sorry to hear of your troubles. This sounds like the same group that contacted me several times over the summer and then once again in December. Hmmm… was not sure what they were up to with all of the call backs asking if I was still interested and that Mr. So & So would be reviewing this and that. There was another outfit called NACA doing low income loans for people on HUD homes. They were paying a low predetermined fee for any size house. I avoided that deal too. Sounds like they were keeping you quite busy for a time. How many inspections a month were you doing for them?

Hank Spinnler
Harmony Home Inspection Services

Thanks for the info. Its tough enough making a living but then to get burned on payment is inexcusable. Good luck in collecting the $8800.

Louis Agudo
Home Sweet Home Inspection Services

This is a gross mischaracterization of the way we do business. This issue has been legally settled, and we would be glad to address any queries regarding this at We have done millions of dollars of business, and have had hundreds of inspectors, and unfortunately when you deal with that kind of volume, there are sometime sour grapes.

So he’s been paid the $8800 you owe him?

Because if not, it’s not a mischaracterization at all.

  1. Yes he has been paid.
  2. He failed to mention in his post, that he made a serious, though probably honest, mistake on a report (reported a polybutylene system as PVC) for a large house, that cost us over $10,000 to replace, to appease our client.
    [size=2]3) There were other inpectors in the state, around that same time, that we found out (through an audit) that were up to no good and were fired in bulk. Mike was not one of these, he was let go per request of our client after the polybutylene mistake.

So, to recap, he was only telling one side of the story, HE HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL, and we wish him well in any and all future work, in fact, we would overall give him a positive letter of recommendation if asked.


Have you resolved this issue with Mike? Has he been paid? Is the check in the mail? Such a broad comment on the NACHI board. At this time you are leaving a couple thousand inspectors around the nation wondering. Not getting paid for one inspection is bad enough but that much money at least deserves some answers. I do commend you for your reply but keep in mind the magnitude of this.

Please see reply #7 of this post.

Also, as a side note, although the amount seems high, it is about 2-3 weeks work for our average inspector in that state. I only mention this, because he seemed to be using it to get a response.

Again, he has been paid, and we wish him the best.

My mistake I was typing my reply when you must have sent yours. That is a lot of money so he must have done quite a bit of work for you. But since your client said to fire him I guess all the good inspections he has done to rack up that kind of money owed to him is forgotten and so is the “I am only human and will make mistakes” goes out the door as well. Policy is Policy I guess?

If he’s been paid, then it’s closed.

While he’d probably have preferred getting his money in a timely manner, at least he got it.

At least we THINK he did! :cool:


It sounds like you have offended OPS with your comments. Is there any validity to their statement, have you been paid to your satisfaction, or were there charge backs, etc. involved.
If you got paid, great, and thanks for the headsup. If you haven’t been paid, as they say, let us know.
Good Luck

wow interesting

How the heck can someone mistake reporting PB for PVC? There’s an obvious day & night difference with these pipings.

We’re sitting here listening to 2 opposing sides, not knowing who to believe, would you be willing to show us a picture of a cancelled check, so you can put this puppy to bed? Ken

10K to replace plumbing? Can I be your plumbing contractor?
Re-pipe ten houses and gross over 100k…that is a pretty good gig.

Sure it was PB and this should have been documented in the report, and the buyer advised of the issues surrounding the material
…however if the product was not leaking, then it techinically was not defective as per the standards outlined in the class action litigation on the product. Claims for the product can only be made when a failure (leakage) has occurred.
So why did it all have to be replaced? I don’t recommend repiping a home just because it has PB, I just make the client aware of its’ presence, and the potential for future problems. Like a 10 year old water heater…it may fail in the near future, but I inspected one yesterday that was 23 years old, and still working fine…

Kinda hits the nail on the head doesn’t it?

Insisting on replacement is alarmist at best unless there is a detected leak or evidence of such. Noting the presence of poly pipe is required. Noting the potential of such piping is required. Insisting on relacement is outside of the scope of the SOP anyway.


You missed his point.

He paid to replace the PB to appease his client who had decided to go ahead with the purchase under the wrong opinion (as provided by the inspector) that his plumbing was PVC.

No one recommended replacement in a report.

My guess is the client was wanting to sue for a whole lot more and the $10,000 was the cheaper way out.

But as to the point of PB…by calling it out and informing the client of the dangers and known problems with it…that, by itself, can be construed as a suggestion to have it replaced.