Dalton Mill Inspectors

“It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” – W. C. Fields 

Do you think there is a Floor Inspector Problem? If the answer is yes, look to Dalton, GA, and the “Dalton Mill Inspectors”, for the cause. 

Disclaimer: The term “Dalton Inspector” refers not to any school or organization, but to the submissive attitude of some inspectors willing to sell their integrity for a low mill fee. . 

Each week, commentaries by retailers, installers and contractors appear on social media forums complaining about manufacturers hiring Dalton Mill Inspectors who write whatever the mills require to deny legitimate manufacturing defects. 

Certification has become a business, and too many inspectors rely on the paper cert rather than education and experience. An entire industry has grown up without any oversight. Currently, ITS, IFCII, ICRII and CFIU meet every two to three months to discuss oversight parameters to further the trade beyond the one-week wonders. 

INSPECTORS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DEFACTO MILL EMPLOYEES!

The Guild supports two schools that recommend education beyond a one-week course: IFCII and ITS. Why? They support our efforts for advance scientific education. 

This story is from one of our Peer Reviewed Inspectors. It should be horrifying to read by flooring professionals.

The following was reported to the Guild by one of our Peer Reviewed Inspectors.

After eight years with no contact, a manufacturer requested an inspection from a Peer Reviewed Inspector. He informed them he would not use their third-party payment or reporting system. They insisted, and he accepted if they agreed to his conditions. They agreed, said, go do the inspection.

The inspector’s findings were clear. No installation issues. There was visible topical damage. There were manufacturing defects. And absolutely no moisture concerns. The analyst had questions by email, they were answered, and the inspector reiterated his findings for the analyst.

The retailer, after receiving a copy of the report, contacted the inspector to confirm if the report they received was his because they had questions. After confirming the report was his, the retailer sent him a copy of the Denial Letter. 

The Denial Letter stated the inspector had written in his report there were moisture issues. This misinformation used the inspector’s name and name of his service. 

This was a complete falsification of facts and a direct assault on the inspector’s reputation. The inspector did not know that was done until after the retailer contacted him! Fraud? Mislead with intent to defraud? Defame the inspector’s good name and reputation?

To use someone like that, with complete disrespect, seems to be only allowed or accepted in the floor inspection trade.  

The retailer questioned when 7.5%–8.5% moisture content became “excessively high.” Meter photographs were in the report. The retailer was told it is not excessively high by they inspector. There was additional visual and measured data that confirmed there had not been any moisture issues in the past.

The retailer requested a meeting with the district, regional and sales rep managers who informed the retailer the report should have been “vetted and corrected”—Read that again because “Vetted and Corrected” means, change the report to meet their desired criteria to deny the claim? 

The claims department then requested a conference call with the inspector. This was three weeks after the report with no payment issued. 

The inspector stated clearly: if the goal was to pressure him into changing a factually correct report, they would need to pay for his time, but he would not revise the findings. He also reminded them that they had already used his report despite not paying for it and made false statements about the contents of his report. No respect.

An inspection report is the property of the inspector until payment is made. 

Next came the email: ‘Your invoice is on hold until your report is corrected.’ In other words, be dishonest. Write a lie or no payment. He refused. 

The inspector withdrew his report and invoice. Peer Reviewed inspectors’ integrity is not for sale. That is one of the biggest factors for the Guild’s Peer Reviewed Inspectors. The claims manager replied by threatening that any future inspection the inspector performed on their products—for installers,  retailers, or homeowners—would be automatically rejected.

INTIMIATION?

Can we infer from that, that honest factual reports are to be rejected without review? Or any reports  by honest inspectors rejected? If the inspector refuses to be intimidated? If the inspector can be controlled? Ruin his reputation and career?

Please, never again pretend for the public that Dalton Mill Inspectors are not bias.

Do I have an inspector for you!

This became a marketing opportunity. The inspector retained all emails and the denial letter that misrepresented his report and the attempt to coerce him into changing the truthful report. 

This behavior is disrespectful to inspectors and shows how dependent they believe inspectors are on their mill fees. 

This behavior shows the fault may start with the Dalton Mill Inspectors, and the floor manufacturers who use them, Vs. Independent Floor Inspectors. 

The inspector is creating a brochure for retailers, lawyers, and consumers showing what they are up against in the Claim Monster Industry. He will be advising them that litigation is often the only recourse. He has been qualified as an expert witness in several states.

In court, the judge will decide if the report will be accepted based upon its merits, and expertise of the inspector. Not the mill manager with his “special interest”.

This type of activity by this claim’s office demonstrates that all claims to honest, un-bias third party inspectors, is gone by some manufacturers.

Are Dalton Mill Inspectors expected to alter reports and lie for the mills? 

Not every manufacturer behaves this way, but the practice is widespread enough to damage trust in the entire inspection system. Inspectors who allow themselves to be bullied or write bogus reports for continued work do not deserve respect. They are not independent flooring inspectors; they are a chattel of the mills.

If there are any schools that favor this type of dishonesty, and encourages their inspectors to follow this practice, they should have their inspectors rejected for  claims by retailers, installers, contractors and homeowners.

We urge all consumers, installers,  and retailers to take control of their claims, hire their own independent inspector, and be certain that he or she is not a Dalton Mill Inspector.