A theoretical problem which needs an answer! After 2006 USPAP became effective Lender A requests an appraisal from Appraiser R. Appraiser R completes 2055 appraisal after communications with Lender A informing them of limitations on available data because of remote location and poor public records. Lender A accepts completed appraisal and funds loan for Buyer L. Fast forward about seven months to Buyer L filing complaints with Real Estate Commission and Appraiser. Seems Buyer L purchased the property sight unseen, never even knew where it really was prior to picking up keys with directions to the house. After living in the home they realized that because of a high water table (seasonal, based on rainfall) the basement had some small water problems. When their sump pump quit working they just let the basement fill with water? When they purchased the property the sellers disclosure stated the presence of a well and an underground storage tank. Apparently the ust was a gas tank with the pump assembly enclosed in a planter in the yard. After about seven months of no complaints or phone calls the complaints went out. Now the question for my fellow appraisers. USPAP requires us to name the intended user (in this case the lender) and the intended use (the financing a purchase transaction) which both occcured. There was never a question from Lender A to anyone. Now, if a borrower (not an intended user) files a complaint with a state regulatory body, what is their duty? To investigate the complaint even though the complainant is not the intended user? To investigate even though there has been no complaint from the intended user? I'm really confused on this one? If the state regulatory body was to follow through on a complaint from and unintended user, what is the good of USPAP? I really would like to read some well thought out responses to this one?