Because the Structural Pest Control Board is under the governance of the Department of Consumer Affairs, I sent a copy of the letter from Gayle Yamada of the SPCB and my response letter to her, with all the attachments referenced, and a cover letter dated March 10, 1994, to the Department of Consumer Affairs.

I received a letter dated May 20, 1994, from Lowayne Shieh, Chief, Consumer Services Division stating my letter and supporting documentation were forwarded to the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Legal Office for review; if they find evidence of inappropriate or questionable activity, the case could be investigated; and if the case is investigated, I would be informed.

I then received a letter dated June 7, 1994, from C. Lance Barnett, the Interim Director of Consumer Affairs which stated, in part:

Given the seriousness of your allegations about the SPCB and its employees, I have requested a review of the matter by the Department’s Deputy Director for Legal Affairs. My requested review has been completed.  The recommendation to me is that no further action is appropriate.  After review, I now must concur with that recommendation.

I sent another letter and asked several specific questions.  The response letter from Mr. Barnett did not contain an answer to even one of my questions, and he closed his letter with, “Your further correspondence to the Department on this closed matter will not receive a further response.

I contacted the California State Bar Association regarding the conduct of our attorney, including the facts that he had neglected to appear at a preliminary hearing, neglected to file an opposition to a motion by the defense attorneys which resulted in judgments for the defense, and his erratic and at times erroneous billing whereby we didn’t know how much we owed at any given time. I informed them that our attorney had told us, in writing, that the total legal fees and expenses would amount to $12,500 to $25,000, but that the total came to over $100,000. When I told them we had paid almost $20,000 but were forced to file bankruptcy in part because of our attorney’s handling of the case, I was told, “You got what you paid for.”

I met with Michael Miller of the California State Legislature’s Committee on Consumer Protection and Governmental Efficiency and provided him with a box full of documentation. After a couple of years went by and I heard nothing from the Committee, I retrieved the box. In it, I found a letter written to the Committee by the Department of Consumer Affairs which stated in part:

There was no evidence that Terminix breached its professional obligations. Consequently the SPCB determined then, and reaffirms no, that no disciplinary action would have lied (sic - Freudian slip?) then or now, against Terminix.

On March 10, 1998, I sent the Committee a five-page letter in response to the Department of Consumer Affairs’ letter and included documentation and my web site address so the Committee could see for themselves that contrary to the current position of the Department of Consumer Affairs, the SPCB did indeed determine then that disciplinary action against Terminix was recommended.  I referenced the letter from the Department of Consumer Affairs and stated, in part:

It is a “no-brainer” that the Department of Consumer Affairs continually contends that they concluded there was no evidence Terminix breached its professional obligations; for to do so would be to admit the SPCB, which is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs, failed to take appropriate action. In other words, the Department of Consumer Affairs investigated themselves and determined that they did nothing wrong!  Of course, they are not going to admit they really screwed up and disciplinary action should be taken against them.  It continues to amaze me, however, that the State agencies and representatives I have gone to for help expect the Department of Consumer Affairs to investigate themselves and admit guilt.

To date, there has been no response to my letter.

I sent a letter, dated July 5, 1994, to the California Office of Real Estate Appraisers (OREA) with supporting documents regarding Dennis Kaiser’s negligent, erroneous appraisal and his perjurious testimony in court. I received a letter from the Office of Real Estate Appraisers, dated July 11, 1994, requesting further information which I then provided.

I received another letter, dated August 9, 1994, from the Office of Real Estate Appraisers which acknowledged receipt of my complaint and stated:

Since a variety of factors impact the order in which complaints are reviewed and investigated, we are unable to estimate how long this matter may take. You may be contacted should additional information become necessary and will be notified of our findings upon completion of this matter. Additionally, if disciplinary action is taken, the results will become public record.

In June 1997 -- three years after I filed my complaint against Dennis Kaiser, I received a letter from the Office of Real Estate Appraisers which stated they had concluded their investigation of my complaint and determined “there were no significant violations of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice” and “further action is not warranted.”

Interesting. Their “investigation” did not include an inspection of the house.  What did they investigate?  Certainly not the condition of the property, the Sutter County Tax Assessor’s records, nor whether the comparables used by Dennis Kaiser were legitimate.

In 1995, the Sutter County Tax Assessor’s Office appraised the property at $42,000 less than Dennis Kaiser’s appraisal; therefore, I guess the State licensing agency allows a margin of error of plus or minus over $40,000 on property appraisals.

Cleared of any wrongdoing by the State of California licensing agency, Dennis Kaiser is sanctioned by the State of California to continue providing real estate appraisals.  I am sure he, and others like him, would be more than happy to provide one for you.

The California Office of Real Estate Appraisers was investigated by the California State Auditor. In March 1998, the California State Auditor/Bureau of State Audits Summary of Report Number 97112 regarding the Office of Real Estate Appraisers stated:

Improvements are Needed in Complaint Processing, Personnel Practices, and in Some Licensing Procedures

Some management practices of the Office of Real Estate Appraisers (department) have adversely affected its ability to protect consumers...

An article published May 9, 1998, in the Sacramento Bee stated:

The three top administrators of the state office that licenses real estate appraisers have been fired.... The action came six weeks after a scathing audit found the office was making little progress in reducing a huge backlog of consumer complaints. Then during a budget hearing two weeks ago, state Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon, held up the office’s $4 million budget after current and former employees told the Wall Street Journal that office files were shredded just before the audit began.