I wonder what it costs to maintain the building and the payrolls for those enforcing Consumer Protection for 40 Million Californians and the immigrant community?

Anna Warner's Review and Followup are the ones that stood out the most to me as concerning...

When I sent in my first notice of complaint to the SPCB, they were provided 75% of the information I had. 

That 75% showed a gross level of "procedural malfeasance" and "report deficiencies" that I and they could use to claim Carriaga may have NEVER done a report honestly, with no way for he or his Boss, Bob Wheeler to prove otherwise. 

As an "Administrative Agency" tasked with "Consumer Protection" the SPCB bar for adjudication should be LOWER than a legal court  not higher.  The mere "appearance of impropriety" or the "potential for impropriety" should set  off their Richter alarms.  

The only thing the SPCB had to offer the public was a "reputation of strict enforcement of procedure"  to try to "protect the public" as well as their own reputation.  

Inspectors who do not FEAR their oversight bodies will be very tempted to turn to the dark side when they start pondering long term success and/or financial stresses.  Inspectors who discover the oversight body will diminish Fraud, Gross Negligence and Misrepresentation down to "negligence" will learn quickly to "feign ignorance" and "incompetence" to maintain a  living.  Allowing an inspector to use "incompetence" as a defense is tantamount to opening the Gates of Hell on the public. 

I spent just over 2 hours on the phone on the first and only call I've had with the Structural Pest Control Investigator.  After the first 30 minutes when it became clear she had reviewed my information and she was trying to use the "no financial harm no foul for us to investigate" I blew both my cover and my lid.   To her credit, she didn't hang up.  Instead she took an ear full. But even then I didn't reveal the cost of the damage in the crawl space to her. 

Towards the end, I asked her, "Given the information I've provided, showing the did NOT properly inspect 1500sf of 2100sf of relevant, non livable space (2nd floor attic and crawl) without noting those omissions on his report honestly, how can you, the Board or his boss say with any confidence he has EVER done a full and complete inspection on any home where the report was marked as "COMPLETE REPORT".  There was a pause. She realized she couldn't and she also realized neither could his boss or anyone else. 

Anyone "sloppy enough" to make the "mistakes he did" should have had their license suspended and/or removed before calling me to see what other details might support a greater suspension or criminal reporting. 

The types of things that might have lead to those mistakes included:

1. Fraud and/or Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

2. Gross Negligence

   1. Overweight - inability to do the requirements of the job

   2. Addict - Drug, alchohol or other addiction that would prevent conscious inspections and reporting

   3. Personal Stress - An extreme level of personal stress that impairs consciousness

3. Negligence  is NOT and option...

 !! negligence can NOT be used to defend the errors he made.!! One simple test for negligence -- if he was buying the home himself or doing the inspection for his mom, would the same omissions have transpired?  If yes, then it's negligence. "Mold in a corner that was missed due to shadows,"  for example could be negligent.  Failing to inspect a 900sf attic and forgetting to note that at all on a report, is not "negligent".  Claiming a 600 sf crawl space that is 36" high was not inspected due to height is NOT negligent. 

Yet, that was the position of the SPCB inspector when we got on the phone AND it carried no administrative penalties or reasons for review?

Bull Sh-t. Horse Sh-t.  Dog Sh-t.

After determining the level to which this Consumer Protection Division was properly viewing "procedure",  they were informed they had been setup. They were provided with the additional information. They have yet to respond, as of 8/24/2023. 

They will be given a little more time. Then a letter demanding a position statement will be sent.  That letter and outcome will be posted here when they exist. 

If I told you a case can be made for 5 acts of Gross Negligence // Procedural Fraud from the report header facts alone, would the surprise you?

1. This report was ordered by the Real Estate Agent. That note contradicts a disclosure statement the agent provided  indicating he provided no support other than referrals for contractors and inspectors. - FRAUD (for the Realtor)

2. This report  was marked as a "Complete Report".  The 900sf 2nd floor attic was not inspected at all (per his later testimony). There was NO WAY FOR ANYONE to know the 2nd floor attic, a 900sf critical space for structural inspection had NOT been inspected at all. There is a space for "inspection tags".  None were there. There was $8,000 in damage in the attic and the nature of the damage should have resulted in a note under "other findings".  -  GROSS NEGLIGENCE // PROCEDURAL FRAUD

3. This report  was marked as a "Complete Report".  The 600 sf sub area was not inspected. The reason provided was "height".  The sub area is 36" high and that is not, by any standard, too low to inspect.  There is a space for "inspection tags".  Subarea was noted.  Finding the relating comment for that in the report was not easy.  That' where the word height is found.  An omission that grand should be found in BOLD in the report summary, if a report is going to be marked as "complete".  That area contained $4,500 in dry rot damage. The exact damage he is paid to call out.  -- GROSS NEGLIGENCE // PROCEDURAL FRAUD 

4. This report  was marked as a "Complete Report".  The 600 sf sub area was not inspected  due to heigh , but the report indicates it was visually inspected. Withing 2' of the opening are signes of 12" of historical flooding, and flood channels. Within 15' and within view from the opening was one of two structurally deficient posts.  GROSS NEGLIGENCE // PROCEDURAL FRAUD

5. This report contains a section called "General Description" -  That box is missing the most relevant declarations.  "The home has two attics and one crawl space that will provide the most relevant feedback for problems on the interior of the home" -  GROSS NEGLIGENCE // PROCEDURAL FRAUD 

This is just the header.

Yet the Investigator at the Structural Pest Control Board wanted to try a "no harm no foul" approach to my complaint? 

Bull Sh-t.     Horse Sh-t.     Dog Sh-t.