Was U-S Government agency honest about its handling of toxic mold problem?

[Guest guest]

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1137631 & nav=0RceE4R1

WOOD TV8 Investigative Report Was U-S Government agency honest about its handling of toxic mold problem?

Email to a Friend

Printer Friendly Version

By Henry Erb

(Grand Rapids, February 18, 2002, 5:19 p.m.) Vander Schuur says he "was very surprised to see all this happening." What he saw was a Target 8 Investigation report which aired February 10 about the house he was buying. "Before your report on television, we knew nothing about the mold," says Vander Schuur. That contradicts what the U-S Department of Agriculture told Target 8 Investigators for the initial story.

A Department spokesman said it had two offers on the house at 146 Great Northern Lane, outside Holland. In both cases the spokesman said the potential buyers were provided copies of a laboratory report about a previous toxic mold problem in the house when they made their offers. But Vander Schuur says he did not get a copy of the report when he made his offer on January 22. It appears the first hint of the issue didn't appear until the government accepted his offer on January 27. His real estate agent says on that day the listing agent faxed her a hard-to-read copy of the test report which says the toxic mold problem had been fixed. She says she wasn't sure about the significance of the report but did mention it to Vander Schuur and said the Department of Agriculture would mail him a copy of the report.

Vander Schuur says he remembers some talk about a report that was coming but if mold was mentioned it apparently didn't register. He says he didn't become alarmed about it until he saw our story on February 10 and then opened the envelope he received from the Agriculture Department two days earlier. It contained his copy of the lab report. In the February 10 story, Target 8 Investigators reported that the US Department of Agriculture spent $42,000 to fix leaks and mold in the house which had forced the former owner to abandon the property. But it wasn't telling prospective buyers up front about it. Target 8 Investigators working undercover asked for the legally required seller's disclosure statement but it did not mention mold, leaks or any other problem. Written across it was the statement that the house was being sold "as is." Nor was there mention of the previous mold problem when a Target 8 Investigator viewed the house. The story raised questions about whether buyers should be told up front about a toxic mold problem, before they decide to buy a house. It reported that Michigan law may not require disclosure of a mold problem that appears to have been remedied.

Some Michigan lawmakers want to revise the law to require disclosure of any mold problem up front so potential buyers can consider it along with other factors before they make an offer. For that story the Agriculture spokesman said the people were being told about the previous mold problem if they asked specifically about mold or made an offer on the house, something the buyer, Vander Schuur now disputes. Today the Ag Department spokesman said the department gave a copy of the report to its listing agent on the 22nd after VanderSchuur made his offer on the house. The Department spokesman did not explain why that report was not in turn given to Vander Schuur on that day as the spokesman had previously stated. "Why didn't they just come out and say it in the beginning?" Vander Schuur wonders. "If they would have told us what the problem had been and showed us the documentation hat they sent to us later there probably wouldn't have been a problem."

It's caused added stress for Vander Schuur, now racing a closing deadline at the end of the month to get his own inspection of the property done. He's also trying to find out if everything that was supposed to be done to correct the leaks and the mold were actually done. Problems he said could have been avoided if the Department of Agriculture had told him about the previous mold problem sooner.

Of the agency's performance he says: "We pay for their services through our taxes and that's not what I would expect."