2009 TREC SOP Commentary [Archive] - InspectionNews

A.D. Miller

02-03-2009, 03:28 PM

Hope everyone is well and prospering!

this was posted on another MB by an Austin inspector

thought it may be of use to others

Barry:

From that document:

"Commentary -- The standards of practice dictate that panels provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice be opened. These panels include access panels for bathtub drains, hydro therapy bathtub pumps and motors, dishwasher pumps, motors, water supply pipes and electrical components, the electrical components of water heaters and central heaters and the dead fronts on main disconnects, gutters, panel boards and equipment disconnects, and lighting fixture switches and electrical wall receptacles, etc. It is not intended that all junction or appliance boxes be opened or that the interiors of the junction and appliance boxes be inspected. Opening of covers and panels should be made without defacing the property or damaging otherwise sound surfaces other than minor damages to
painted surfaces."

Can I get a show of hands from the Texas inspectors who removed all switch, receptacle, and every other conceivable type of cover plate in all houses in 2008? :confused:

Ted Menelly

02-03-2009, 10:06 PM

A.D. Miller

02-04-2009, 06:19 AM

Just as a very rare random check in all aluminum homes looking for pig tails and such. Other than that absolutely never.

I guess for another hundred dollars and a whole lot more insurance for liability it could be done. Add what, another hour to every home or more. Pretty foolish sounding to me. Better be a very rough draft.

Ted and Others: I hope you realize that the quote was from the commentary to the Texas SOP which is to be published this late spring or summer. The way I read it the covers, where they can be construed as "for inspection", from everything are required to be removed.

For liability purposes, if I were you, I would not make any brash statements here about what you do or do not intend to inspect under the new SOP. These walls have ears, some of the belonging to the lop-eared asses from the TREC.:eek:

Rick Hurst

02-04-2009, 06:47 AM

Ted's just being a badarse on here, Aaron. He told me the other day that he always follows the Tx. SOP rules a 100% and was encouraging everyone to do the same.;)

rick

A.D. Miller

02-04-2009, 07:30 AM

Ted's just being a badarse on here, Aaron. He told me the other day that he always follows the Tx. SOP rules a 100% and was encouraging everyone to do the same.;)

rick

Rick: Of course, I know that EVERY Texas inspector on this forum is meticulous in his adherence to the ridiculous SOP.

I just wanted to remind those among the naive crowd that the geniuses in the enforcement branch who don't have the ability to keep the $89 INACHI foreclosure inspectors off Texas streets, or keep agent/inspector fraternization at bay, or eliminate bundled services where lenders, title companies, agents, inspectors, appraisers, et al. work under the same roof, or police inspectors who simply hit the check boxes and produce 6-page reports, or lobby to change the law which allows the virtual continuance of dual agency in the form of intermediary relationships, etc., are certainly listening.

At least I hope they are . . .:eek:

Jerry Peck

02-04-2009, 07:38 AM

Aaron,

What is the precise wording of the SoP requirement that commentary is supposed to be based on? ;)

A.D. Miller

02-04-2009, 07:54 AM

Aaron,

What is the precise wording of the SoP requirement that commentary is supposed to be based on? ;)

JP: The SOP is here:

http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/rules/535.227-233.pdf

Jerry Peck

02-04-2009, 09:00 AM

Aaron,

Nope, those are not covered, the commentary is incorrect.

A.D. Miller

02-04-2009, 09:13 AM

Aaron,

Nope, those are not covered, the commentary is incorrect.

JP: I agree. I just needed to get someone to tell me I wasn't dreaming this whole thing. Bear in mind that this SOP and the commentary are drafted in Austin, which is far to the south of me and much, much closer to the major drug sources in Mexico. The authors seem to know this and have taken advanatage of their proximity.:D

Jim Luttrall

02-04-2009, 09:47 AM

Mike Boyett

02-04-2009, 10:37 AM

Bear in mind that this SOP and the commentary are drafted in Austin, which is far to the south of me and much, much closer to the major drug sources in Mexico. The authors seem to know this and have taken advanatage of their proximity.:DAaron, I'm sure you know the new SOP and preliminary Commentary were drafted by TREC licensed inspectors from Houston, Arlington & Beaumont and not by state bureaucrats nor Realtors. That's not to say they are defensible, far from it.

A.D. Miller

02-04-2009, 10:37 AM

Guys, the way I read the section posted here is that it is merely a commentary on a definition, not a standard of practice. The definition by its nature would have to be very broad. Just because it is allowed for an inspector to open a box without damaging the building finish does not mean the SOP requires it.
The only time I see it is required to open switch or outlet boxes is if you find aluminum or such in the main panel.
Am I wrong?

Jim: It is intended to be an official TREC commentary on an official TREC definition regarding issues in the official TREC SOP. Just as the IRC and NEC commentaries are to be construed as a part of those codes, this commentary will be so interpreted.

The commentary reads in part, the bolding and underlining are mine:

"Commentary -- The standards of practice dictate that panels provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice be opened. These panels include access panels for bathtub drains, hydro therapy bathtub pumps and motors, dishwasher pumps, motors, water supply pipes and electrical components, the electrical components of water heaters and central heaters and the dead fronts on main disconnects, gutters, panel boards and equipment disconnects, and lighting fixture switches and electrical wall receptacles, etc. It is not intended that all junction or appliance boxes be opened or that the interiors of the junction and appliance boxes be inspected. Opening of covers and panels should be made without defacing the property or damaging otherwise sound surfaces other than minor damages to painted surfaces."

The bold and underline part states clearly that covers and access panels of all types shall be opened. The very next statement indicates that maybe not all of them are to be opened. Which is it? All or some or what?

"Panels provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice." A poorly worded and extremely nebulous statement indeed. Is a bathrap cut by a plumber for a plumbing repair or by a PCO for insecticide application really "provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice"?

Are junction box covers installed by the electricians as per NEC "provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice"?

Is the cover for an A/C evaporator coil "provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice"?

Is the kick-plate panel for a dishwasher "provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice"?

I can go on like this through the entire list of MEP appliances, fixtures and fittings.

Clear as mud to me.:D

Ted Menelly

02-04-2009, 11:14 AM

It has never been the standard to open receptacles and switch covers.

That is just a commentary. That is what I said about only on a rare occasion do I open switch covers and receptacles cover. All other panels that I can get to I open as we all should.

One cannot produce standards of practice and then add commentary to those standards like the commentary is the law. The standards are the law. If it is not stated in the standards (and it is not) then the commentary is meaningless (and useless).

The comments are a rough draught.

Hmm. Aaron. There is clean and clear mud???? Clean mud like the mud not made with dirty dirt????

A.D. Miller

02-04-2009, 11:17 AM

It has never been the standard to open receptacles and switch covers.

That is just a commentary. That is what I said about only on a rare occasion do I open switch covers and receptacles cover. All other panels that I can get to I open as we all should.

One cannot produce standards of practice and then add commentary to those standards like the commentary is the law. The standards are the law. If it is not stated in the standards (and it is not) then the commentary is meaningless (and useless).

The comments are a rough draught.

Ted: What is has been in the past and what it is since 2/1/09 are two entirely different things.

The commentary is a rough draft, but a draft of an official document nontheless. And, are you giving us the official word, or is this just your personal opinion, which by the way is "meaningless (and useless)?

Ted Menelly

02-04-2009, 11:30 AM

Ted: What is has been in the past and what it is since 2/1/09 are two entirely different things.

The commentary is a rough draft, but a draft of an official document nontheless. And, are you giving us the official word, or is this just your personal opinion, which by the way is "meaningless (and useless)?

What I am saying is..

Put em up sucka

No. Actually I am speeking in the fact, Mr Aaron, kind Sir, that it is not in the standards to take off all switch covers and outlet receptacles covers, Sir, and never has been and the Nice Fella that wrote the schtinking (quiet Billy) commentary needs to do some more work on it, Sir Aaron, because he screwed up and needs to fix the friggin thing. That in itself makes it a rough draft that no one needs to pay freakin attention to, kind Sir, Aaron.

Jerry Peck

02-04-2009, 11:41 AM

the Nice Fella that wrote the schtinking (quiet Billy) commentary needs to do some more work on it, Sir Aaron, because he screwed up and needs to fix the friggin thing.

That's what Aaron is saying.

That in itself makes it a rough draft that no one needs to pay freakin attention to, kind Sir, Aaron.

Aaron is not the one you need to tell, the author of that commentary is the one you need to be speaking to. :D

Ted Menelly

02-04-2009, 11:46 AM

If the intent of the commentary is to clarify a standard then some one has to rewrite the standard just one more time because there is not a TREC licensed inspector that is going to take off all switch and outlet receptacle covers no matter what they say on this board. They are not going to do it. Not only will you have to take off the cover but then unscrew the recptacle or switch to see if there are any loose connections for all wires connected to the outlet or switch and then any concealed pigtails where you cannot see the actual connection and then of course unscrew all wire nuts to make sure all wires are twisted properly inside thos wire nuts and while you are at it test every single circuit, end to end. Oh yeah while you are at it you must stick your screw driver into all electric panels to find out if all the neutrals, grounds, hots are all screwed nice and tight.

Sorry TREC board. If that is your intent then your intent is sadly mistaken. It, I can guarantee you, will not happen with 99% of all inspectors at 99% of all inspections. To pull an outlet cover off just to try and what, see in beside it? What can be seen to the fullest intent. The only reason the random cover plates should come off is checking for all aluminum and or pigtails. If something else is seen, like melted connections, then write it up.

But I know that is not the intent. Because that would be quite foolish now, would it not? It was just a commentary boo boo that needs to be fixed.

Ted Menelly

02-04-2009, 11:48 AM

Come on Jerry

I need to release on someone. You just were not available yet. Let me see. What has Jerry said lately.

I'll find something.

I am about to throw up over this no work thing.

Richard Stanley

02-04-2009, 04:26 PM

Ted, While you're 'resting', how about authoring an alternative commentary for submission to TREC. Maybe we could all contribute - or not.

Ted Menelly

02-04-2009, 06:20 PM

Ted, While you're 'resting', how about authoring an alternative commentary for submission to TREC. Maybe we could all contribute - or not.

This guy that is doing his own commentary is not doing bad. Just needs some fixing before someone gets the bright idea of incorporating his commentary into the SOPs.

Hm A combined effort for commentaries. Does that mean when one of us gets sued we all get sued. And what exactly are these commentaries. Comments to add in to different areas of the report. I try to avoid that like the plague. For one thing it looks like one is trying to hide behind wording of comments. The second thing it turns a reasonable report into a fifty page report and I just do not believe in adding all that to a report that clients have to read thru and around.

I have borrowed a few commentaries from other inspectors. I may have changed them slightly. I believe in no wring around the Rosy report. I comment directly in my reports about the subject matter with out a commentary upfront in each section.

A lot of inspectors don't like my direct approach to reporting. Most say that I should add this or don't add that. I say, "my clients love it and could not believe how easy it was to read." The vast majority never have to call for clarification about anything.

Most say when I hand them the report "where are all the disclaimers and such." They are used to seeing from past inspections a book size report that they slowly and painfully tear away to find what the concerns there are.Front cover, invoice, on to the report. Concerns highlighted in red.

:eek: No summary. There have been a few Realtors to complain about that one.

As far as relaxing??? Not in the slightest. Calling, mailing, emailing, calling some more, new cards made, checking website, more emailing, mailing, phone calls. This is far more exhausting than doing inspections everyday.

Mike Boyett

02-04-2009, 08:28 PM

Just so everyone is one the same page let me re-iterate what the Commentary is and how it came about. I will leave out some of the less important political dealings and try to just cut to the chase. We all know that Texas inspectors are governed by TREC, the Texas Real Estate Commission. TREC has appointed, and has for many years, an Inspectors Advisory Committee which does just that, advises TREC on inspection matters. The 9 member Inspectors Advisory Committee is made up of 6 TREC licensed inspectors from across the state plus 3 'public' members who have no ties to the Real Estate community. About 18-24 months ago the Inspectors Advisory Committee endeavored to update and revise the inspection Standards of Practice. They appointed 3 of their members, all 3 being inspectors, to a sub-committee to draft that revised SOP and get the other 6 Inspectors Advisory Committee members buy-in. That process was completed in October of last year and the revised SOP was adopted with a 2/1/09 implementation date. Once the revised SOP was agreed upon in October that very same Inspectors Advisory Committee sub-committee of 3 members then proposed writing a Commentary to explain to the world what their thinking was behind the new, revised SOP. That's what you are seeing in the draft Commentary, their work in progress. But, it's not some lonely guy sitting by himself dreaming stuff up, it's from the same guys that wrote the SOP. The purpose is certainly not for use in reports, it's to explain to you why certain things are the way they are in the new SOP. The Inspectors Advisory Committee sub-committee is certainly anxious to hear feedback and critique if that can be provided in a logical, well thought out manner. Simply bitching and moaning about it does little good. Provide your feedback and comments to them directly or send them to me and I will see that they get them. My experience with the committee has been that if you point out a area of disagreement and provide a good, logical argument then they will take it under consideration. They do tend to not pay much attention to complaining about something without also providing a solution or an alternative. They also tend to disregard diatribes (like this post is turning into) so keep it simple and to the point. Just to be sure, the Commentary is for you, the Texas HI, to better understand where their thought process was when writing the SOP.

Ted Menelly

02-04-2009, 08:55 PM

Thanks for the clarification

As I said it looked to me like what many inspectors put into their reports for commentaries explaining the particular section.

As far as complaining with out opposing input. Well, the particular section has something to complain about and the opposing input was to clear it up before its final writing. Adding confusing and contradictory statements to a legal standard that home inspectors must follow especially when the commentary is written by the same man that the standard is written by, well, simply not cool.

Lets use that section. "and lighting fixture switches and electrical wall receptacles, etc." Not in the realm of any home inspection of any standards and not in the standards that have been adopted.

"They also tend to disregard diatribes" Some of the greatest knowledge has come from such. Maybe not the proper way to do things but sometimes one must think out of the little box and absorb surrounding knowledge in any way one can.

They had a lot of work to due writing up new standards or revised standards. We must remember one thing. A home inspection is not and was never meant to be an exhaustive inspection. We are not only saving buyers and or sellers money with our findings but we are also saving them a small fortune from having to hire multiple contractors to find these concerns. If concerns are found then the appropriate trade comes in after us for the exhaustive eval and or quote/repair.

Home inspection in and of itself is extremely competitive just in pricing. The deeper we get, the longer we spend, the more certifications we need and the more exhaustive we get will stop being a benefit to our clients.

As it says "We are there to REDUCE the risk but impossible to eliminate all the risks of home buying." Not everything will be found.

Jerry Peck

02-04-2009, 09:38 PM

The purpose is certainly not for use in reports, it's to explain to you why certain things are the way they are in the new SOP.

You Texas inspectors know full well that what is in that Commentary is what your reports will be judged to when a complaint is filed.

Not only that, but that Commentary is what your reports will be judged to when the Judge needs to do the judging.

Whoever is the person responsible for that thinking (I really find it hard to believe all 3 inspector sub-committee members think that way) needs to back away from their computer and submit to a head slapping, and it that does not do it, someone needs to grab the 2x4 for upside the head.

That Commentary IS GOING TO HANG you guys.

On something like that, if you need help, I'll work at a reduced cost (not free, but 'reduced cost' to help out), no hourly rate, just a lump sum to help write it, then work with those guys on making sure the Commentary says what the SoP says, and if the SoP *does not say it* that the Commentary *should not say it* either.

BARRY ADAIR

02-05-2009, 07:55 AM

Barry:

From that document:

"Commentary -- The standards of practice dictate that panels provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice be opened. These panels include access panels for bathtub drains, hydro therapy bathtub pumps and motors, dishwasher pumps, motors, water supply pipes and electrical components, the electrical components of water heaters and central heaters and the dead fronts on main disconnects, gutters, panel boards and equipment disconnects, and lighting fixture switches and electrical wall receptacles, etc. It is not intended that all junction or appliance boxes be opened or that the interiors of the junction and appliance boxes be inspected. Opening of covers and panels should be made without defacing the property or damaging otherwise sound surfaces other than minor damages to
painted surfaces."

Can I get a show of hands from the Texas inspectors who removed all switch, receptacle, and every other conceivable type of cover plate in all houses in 2008? :confused:

Aaron and all others, also from SOP and that document:

(C) If the inspector routinely departs from inspection of a part, system, or
component, the earliest practical opportunity for the notice required by this
subsection is the first contact with the prospect and the inspector has reason
to believe that the property being inspected has the part, system, or
component the inspector routinely does not inspect.

Commentary -- Nothing in the Standards require an inspector to put himself in a position
of unacceptable risk to that individual inspector. It is clearly realized that different
inspectors have different levels of tolerance for heights, for the use of ladders, and from
exposure to live electrical components, etc. This provision of the Departure Provision
recognizes those facts and creates a system by which the consumer can be informed
that there are limitations, for whatever reason, beyond which an inspector will not
venture. However, the concern of the Texas Real Estate Commission is that the
consumer has the time necessary to perform the due diligence necessary for the
consumer to make an informed choice. It is the requirement of this section that an
inspector who does not perform certain tasks, such as climbing ladders, walking roof
surfaces, walking through or crawling attic spaces, entering crawl spaces under houses,
removing covers from panel boxes, electrical cabinets, etc. inform the consumer or the
consumer‟s representative at first contact. This often means when the consumer or the
consumer‟s representative calls, emails or otherwise contacts the inspector to arrange
for inspection services. It is expected that the inspector respect the need of the
consumer to have the opportunity to complete their due diligence investigations during
the limited time period afforded by the option period.
(c) Enforcement. Failure to comply with the standards of practice is grounds for
disciplinary action as prescribed by Chapter 1102.

Jerry,

We probably couldn't afford your "bail out plan" ;)

Jerry Peck

02-05-2009, 09:44 AM

Aaron and all others, also from SOP and that document:

(C) If the inspector routinely departs from inspection of a part, system, or component, the earliest practical opportunity for the notice required by this subsection is the first contact with the prospect and the inspector has reason to believe that the property being inspected has the part, system, or component the inspector routinely does not inspect.

Commentary -- Nothing in the Standards require an inspector to put himself in a position of unacceptable risk to that individual inspector. It is clearly realized that different inspectors have different levels of tolerance for heights, for the use of ladders, and from exposure to live electrical components, etc. This provision of the Departure Provision recognizes those facts and creates a system by which the consumer can be informed that there are limitations, for whatever reason, beyond which an inspector will not venture. However, the concern of the Texas Real Estate Commission is that the consumer has the time necessary to perform the due diligence necessary for the consumer to make an informed choice. It is the requirement of this section that an inspector who does not perform certain tasks, such as climbing ladders, walking roof surfaces, walking through or crawling attic spaces, entering crawl spaces under houses, removing covers from panel boxes, electrical cabinets, etc. inform the consumer or the consumer‟s representative at first contact. This often means when the consumer or the consumer‟s representative calls, emails or otherwise contacts the inspector to arrange for inspection services. It is expected that the inspector respect the need of the consumer to have the opportunity to complete their due diligence investigations during the limited time period afforded by the option period.

Actually, that SoP requirement states a whole lot more than the Commentary says it does. It gets real scary just thinking about it.

Jerry,

We probably couldn't afford your "bail out plan" ;)

Actually, if I could, I would offer it free, however, at "reduced cost" you ... how do we explain it to our client's ... "cannot afford to not have me" ... ;)

(underlining and bold are mine)

(C) If the inspector routinely departs from inspection of a part, system, or component, the earliest practical opportunity for the notice required by this subsection is the first contact with the prospect and the inspector has reason to believe that the property being inspected has the part, system, or component the inspector routinely does not inspect.

Just how many times do you "routinely depart from" the SoP, not only in 'doing less than' the SoP calls for (which is what the commentary is saying), but 'doing more than' what the SoP calls for (which is what that section is saying). That section simply states that if you "routinely" (and all all do the same things all the time, that is routinely) "depart from" (deviate from, either lesser or more, it does not specify which) then you shall (no choice, you *shall*) tell the client at your "first contact".

Can you imagine telling your client, at your first contact, without knowing what the structure looks like and what might or might not be there, ... telling your client at first contact ... of ALL THE THINGS YOU INSPECT WHICH ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND the SoP? That *IS* what that section says.

This is basically as much about what the new SoP committee put or kept in the SoP as it is the commentary which is being written. If they really meant to say one thing, the commentary cannot say something else, and if they really meant what the commentary says, then the SoP is incorrect.

I should triple my fee for working with people like that, but I would do it at "reduced cost" simply to cover *some of* the time it would take, but not cover anywhere near what it would really take, but that's the intent, to help out.

A.D. Miller

02-05-2009, 10:06 AM

Actually, that SoP requirement states a whole lot more than the Commentary says it does. It gets real scary just thinking about it.

JP: Do not real the whole thing without a bottle of Brandy nearby.

Just how many times do you "routinely depart from" the SoP, not only in 'doing less than' the SoP calls for (which is what the commentary is saying), but 'doing more than' what the SoP calls for (which is what that section is saying). That section simply states that if you "routinely" (and all all do the same things all the time, that is routinely) "depart from" (deviate from, either lesser or more, it does not specify which) then you shall (no choice, you *shall*) tell the client at your "first contact".

Can you imagine telling your client, at your first contact, without knowing what the structure looks like and what might or might not be there, ... telling your client at first contact ... of ALL THE THINGS YOU INSPECT WHICH ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND the SoP? That *IS* what that section says.

This is, in my opinion, the biggest load of crap in the SOP. Not that there are not other contradictory and liability-building passages. This one is just the worst.

If they really meant to say one thing, the commentary cannot say something else, and if they really meant what the commentary says, then the SoP is incorrect.

JP: Now you're getting close to the heart of the matter.

I should triple my fee for working with people like that

It would not be worth it, believe me.

Roger Hankey

02-10-2009, 08:56 AM

1. The TREC revisions, while done in part by a group of inspectors, shows the weakness of relying primarily on persons not trained or experienced in drafting regulations. I suspect that the TREC did not provide the advisory committee with a staff to facilitate the redrafting.

2. The whole process shows the perils of regulation. It is bad enough when professional societies try to write or revise standards without using attornies or other outside experts. In over 30 years of reviewing HI standards of practice, I've yet to see one that is free of contradictions, poorly defined terms, and language that creates the potential for significant inspector liability. When will we get together and spend the $$ necessary to draft a high quality document that defines our scope of work without creating unnecessary liability.

3. What organization has enough members willing to spend the $$ to do this. It is NOT a take to be undertaken by volunteers. HI's can advise and direct the drafters, and approve the final content, but not be tasked with primary responsibility of drafting the document. We do not need to re-invent the wheel. I expect that the scope of work from other professions can be used as a skeleton on which to flesh out our scope of work.

4. The TREC example shows how little progress has been made in improving the scope of work (or SOP) in 20+ years of regulation. When will we move from using volunteers to draft our rules, to hiring experts to assist us in crafting a defensible scope of work? I would welcome a special assessment from any HI organization that would pledge to hire professionals (guided by experienced HI's) to undertake this task.

A.D. Miller

02-10-2009, 10:00 AM

1. The TREC revisions, while done in part by a group of inspectors, shows the weakness of relying primarily on persons not trained or experienced in drafting regulations. I suspect that the TREC did not provide the advisory committee with a staff to facilitate the redrafting.

Roger: Correct. And, they did not pay the volutneers who drafted it. They did pay the attorneys wh oversaw the process - wasted money.

2. The whole process shows the perils of regulation. It is bad enough when professional societies try to write or revise standards without using attornies or other outside experts. In over 30 years of reviewing HI standards of practice, I've yet to see one that is free of contradictions, poorly defined terms, and language that creates the potential for significant inspector liability. When will we get together and spend the $$ necessary to draft a high quality document that defines our scope of work without creating unnecessary liability.

Roger: The mian problem here is that the TREC is attempting to act as a defacto code-authoring agency. This is a stupid move and a wast oe time and effort. Why not just use the models codes that are in place a quit trying to reinvent the wheel? Job justification is all that comes to mind.

4. The TREC example shows how little progress has been made in improving the scope of work (or SOP) in 20+ years of regulation. When will we move from using volunteers to draft our rules, to hiring experts to assist us in crafting a defensible scope of work? I would welcome a special assessment from any HI organization that would pledge to hire professionals (guided by experienced HI's) to undertake this task.

Roger: The TREC is not apt to delegate an important matter like this to experts. They think they are the experts.

A.D. Miller

02-10-2009, 10:01 AM

My apologies for not using spell check on that last mess . . .

Roger Hankey

02-10-2009, 10:18 AM

Aaron, why would you want a home inspection scope of work (SOP) based on building codes? We inspect buildings ranging in age from new to 100+ yrs. old. I know of no building code that would apply. Perhaps some housing maintenance codes might apply, but the minute an HI gets involved in codes she/he is doing someone else's job. Very few jurisdictions in the US enforce house OR building codes on real estate transactions. The liability of basing our work on codes would be unending.

As to the attorneys, anytime an HI group writes a document controlling our work or behaviour, WE should select the attorneys. Their job should be to aid us in drafting the document to protect US while still providing a valuable service to our clients. Government attorneys will work in the interest of the government. (Agreed waste of $$ from our perspective)

A.D. Miller

02-10-2009, 10:35 AM

Aaron, why would you want a home inspection scope of work (SOP) based on building codes?

Roger: Because it is the only true benchmark to work from.

We inspect buildings ranging in age from new to 100+ yrs. old. I know of no building code that would apply. Perhaps some housing maintenance codes might apply, but the minute an HI gets involved in codes she/he is doing someone else's job. Very few jurisdictions in the US enforce house OR building codes on real estate transactions. The liability of basing our work on codes would be unending.

Roger: I totally disagree. So what if the house is over 100 years old. We do not make advances in home safety and technology only to benefit new home buyers. The purchasers of older homes should also know how their home compares with the latest and greatest home. While it is true that the pre-existing issues are not required to be repaired, the clients should have all of the facts at hand in order to make and informed decision. Relying on the HI to make a decision as to how much to tell them is a mistake. And, please demonstrate to me how it is you think that their is a liability issue with addressing everything to code. Good luck.

As to the attorneys, anytime an HI group writes a document controlling our work or behavior, WE should select the attorneys. Their job should be to aid us in drafting the document to protect US while still providing a valuable service to our clients. Government attorneys will work in the interest of the government. (Agreed waste of $$ from our perspective)

Roger: And HI groups will always work in the interest of the HI groups. The ICC/NEC does not have a dog in the resale fight and consequently is the best choice.

FYI: I have been writing my reports strictly to code for the past 7 years. Though the TREC reared its ugly head once about it at the behest of the Building Officials Association of Texas and its errant autocratic Fuhrer, no liability has attached since that time.

I personally think that the majority of HIs balk at using the building codes as a basis of comparison for one reason and one reason only. Laziness. It takes a lot of work to learn the codes just well enough to pass the certification tests. It is then even harder to keep up with the changes through each code cycle. It is not for the faint hearted.:cool:

Ted Menelly

02-10-2009, 12:08 PM

ICC and NEC

S O P

Look, a complete code quoted inspection is so far beyond what a home inspection is and or should be.

Saying that an inspection is based on code is one thing. To quote code on everything in an inspection is another.

Quite frankly all the legal bull that is constantly talked about on here is because home inspection has gone to far. It is going even further.

Interpret the code differently. Misquote a particular code for a particular concern. Forget to quote a code or not copy and paste the entire code concern that has to do with what your findings were is what is going to get you in legal trouble.

Taking the freaking IR camera out for a home inspection IS and I say IS going to eventually going to be picked up by attorneys stating that "Well Mr X. You took a picture of what was being this wall but not behind all the walls and this was found in room C" "Mr X. You seem to go to this depth on this inspection but not on that inspection." Any IR inspector better have a picture of every piece of wall, floor and ceiling in the home and keep it on file for years.

You quoted the code on all these items but did not note the complete code for this item.

I don't unless needed (absolutely needed) quote code. I do not bring a 5 or 10,000 dollar IR camera on site for a home inspection.

I do not pull out my electric tester for every switch, outlet, panel etc and touch down on every wire in the home. I do not test the circuit bards in an HVAC system. I do not do a coolant check either.

Pushing for home inspectors to have to be code certified and or bring every tool that could possibly be at an inspectors disposal is absolutely ludicrous and just asking for trouble and a serious expense to every home inspection done.

Look at the sum of inspections done and the amount of difference in the amount of home inspections done between the highest priced and the mid price inspectors. The difference is staggering. The highest priced is almost no existent in the highest priced in comparison.

Once upon a time a home buyer might have asked a builder friend to look at their possible new home to give them a general idea of what the shape of the home is.

That is what a home inspection was and is still is meant to be. Take away some of the risk in home buying without tearing everything down to the bone and beyond.

Instead of a general opinion of their new home it has turned into "well you are the expert and the absolute end all and you missed xxxxxxxx"

Ted Menelly

02-10-2009, 05:35 PM

If I had relied on realtors I would not be in the pickle I am right now. I had almost all my worl from the internet with only a handfull of realtors that chose to appreciate my "no one has any influence over wht goes into my report with the exception of the home itself.

Further more I wish I had a huge realtor base. Again I would not be in the pickle I am in. I have chosen to rethink that effort and increae my marketing to realtors for the very reason I am in the pickle I am in. The folks that are still very busy in this area have a huge realtor base. I am just going to have to convince realtors that an unbiased no influence report is the only way to go.

Yes, home inspection has already gone to far. The very people that you seem to dispise are pushing for the code compliant or should I say the more heavily code based inspection which in turn will get you and every one in ionspection into more , can I say, pickles.

I am gald you agreed with the IR statement. The code thing is the exact same thing if you seriously think about it.

Afraid of quoting code. Absolutely not. Do I know code. Absolutely not as well as you and some others. Do I pick up a code book and check myself all the time, absolutely. I actually can read (sometimes). That is all that is necessary. Quoting codes is what is going to get you in trouble . It puts you in the know all end all catagory and you and others will get torn apart acting or should I say sounded the the sbsolute end all in knowledge. Miss something, you, the code guru, absolutely unacceptable. Code should only be mentioned when absolutley last ditch effort to explain yourself and added in the report explaining why you quoted the code. Also it should be expressed heavily with all your effort that

"This is not a code inspection" " A lot of this inspection may be based on code BUT THIS IS NOTE A CODE INSPECTION"

You quoting code thru your entire report are the one that is asking for it. The SOP and front page TREC contract state specifically that

"This is not a code inspection"

You have turned it into and contradict comletely what a home inspection is and is not

As far as BEING AFRAID of alienating realtors. Gees, I do it all the time. That is why I do not have a long list of Realtors. I mentioned that above. I am regrouping and trying to figure out exactly how to get to and target realtors that are not afraid of "WHAT I SEE IS WHAT I WRITE"

On the bottom of all my marketing materials I state up front that I am Inspecting and reporting for the sole purpose of my client learning the concerns in there new home and no outside influence will interfere with or reflect to my report.

I do not hide behind disclaimers and pages of fill. The whole commentary thing is not anything I agree with. What do they think they are doing. Writing a code book. Turning the inspection into what it was never intended to be.

As far as that statement. You really need to think about it. It is something it was never intended to be. As far as a friend contractor looking someones home over to give the friends he is doing it for an idea of what to expect and to *reduce their risk* in the purchasing of their new home, yes, that is what is suppose to be. Not eliminate all risks with an exhaustive inspection of all components in their home.

As far as testing all recepticle, switches, panels all electric internal components and any other electric devices and fixtures with an electrical tester. I am not talking your basic test of outlets or panels. I repeat from an earlier post. No inspector does that. Not even you or any TREC board member, ever. If there is anyone that thinks that happens then they are having serious nightmares.

Now. Of course this is all JMHO. Just like a backside. Everyone has one.

Roger Hankey

02-10-2009, 06:10 PM

WOW, so much complete disagreement on the use of building codes in HI from within one state.

I am well aware of codes, and agree that it is useful to inform the client of potentially valuable upgrades in older houses, but those existing original conditions are not "adverse conditions" or deficiencies, unless other adverse conditions are also present on the inspected item.

Please consider the used car comparison. Would you advise a friend that a 1980 vehicle does not have anti-lock brakes and recommend an upgrade? Or what about the fact that the car doesn't have air bags? These costly modern technologies are difficult to retrofit. The same can be said for stair riser dimensions. Does A.D. really suggest rebuilding stairs that were built to a prior standard dimension and have no other faults?

I agree that a 1955 rambler does not have the level of insulation found in modern homes, AND I do report this condition and warn that in our MN climate this may lead to ice dams in addition to wasteful heat loss. However this is an original condition and was not a code violation and is not now a code violation, so where would code enter into the report? There are many other sources that can be used to suggest that in our MN climate R-44 attic insulation is prudent and useful so long as it is feasible, AND that warm air leaks into the attic are sealed BEFORE installing additional insulation.

A.D. Miller

02-10-2009, 07:43 PM

. . .you . . . are having serious nightmares.

Ted: Agreed.:D

Ted Menelly

02-10-2009, 08:14 PM

Ted: Agreed.:D

I know I am having nightmares. Nightmares about fifty Realtors a month referring me directly. I'll have to work 7 days a week to handle all the work :)

Now that is a nightmare :confused:

Now you on the other hand don't have nightmares because you are ICC certified :D

John Brown

02-11-2009, 12:04 PM

Without getting into the scrum about new TX standards, I offer this about some of the remarks here:

IR scans. No attorney who has done his or her homework on IR will try to pin a "missed" item on you. Everyone who has done any meaningful IR work knows that results are highly dependent on atmospheric conditions at time of inspection. Your retort to an aggressive attorney's question would be, "Why counselor, you know or should know that IR results can change even over a period of minutes. On the day I was out there it had not rained in 6 weeks. The camera is just a useful tool that sometimes can reveal adverse conditions." (Jury then looks at atty and thinks, "Well, a**hole, what now?")

As far as safety is concerned, you better write up non-compliant stairs and the like. The house may be from 1914 but we live in 2009 and when grandma breaks her hip on the stairs your report better have said "stairs are hazardous" or words to that effect or they can come after you for failure to report, and rightly so (try to find a defense atty who will back you on that). In an injury situation, the standard of care is much higher than any SOP. And they will print out in gorgeous color your web page where you boast that you are "an expert qualified licensed certified professional home inspector that will give them peace of mind." (Jury now glaring at you).

Respectfully

JB

A.D. Miller

02-11-2009, 12:27 PM

Everyone who has done any meaningful IR work knows that results are highly dependent on atmospheric conditions at time of inspection.

John: Or, in other words, how high the operator is on himself for having bought the pricey, mostly useless device?

Your retort to an aggressive attorney's question would be . . .

John: It is likely not the attorney you need to worry about in a case like this so much as it is the expert in the IR field that he has testify against you.

As far as safety is concerned, you better write up non-compliant stairs and the like. The house may be from 1914 but we live in 2009 and when grandma breaks her hip on the stairs your report better have said "stairs are hazardous" or words to that effect or they can come after you for failure to report, and rightly so (try to find a defense atty who will back you on that). In an injury situation, the standard of care is much higher than any SOP. And they will print out in gorgeous color your web page where you boast that you are "an expert qualified licensed certified professional home inspector that will give them peace of mind." (Jury now glaring at you).

John: Agreed.

John Brown

02-11-2009, 02:02 PM

I would not say it is useless....I have found leaks that showed no staining (yet). Verified with moisture meters of course. Also stud bays with no insulation, on new construction. Once in a while you get a fist-pump moment. There are pretty good models out there now for $6K that will make you a hero, and cut back on complaint calls later. Everyone has to make up his own mind about the cost-benefit. It gives me some peace of mind when I do a scan after a week of rain and there is nothing showing at the ceiling. I'm not doing it for the client. I'm doing it for CYA.

The IR expert will be in the same boat. Its a very fuzzy science. While there might be one out there who will say the condition should have been detected, there are 10 other experts that will say otherwise. Since none of them was there that day, who can tell for sure?

On the other hand I would not advertise heavily that IR will find all concealed problems. That would be looking for trouble. There are IR guys out there who are trying to justify buying the camera to Swmbo, and make a big deal out of the scan.

FL*R has done a great disservice to the inspector community at large by exaggerating the cameras' advantages. That exterior picture of the mid-rise condo complex where the leak in the laundry wall jumped out, that was a very lucky shot and not necessarily reproducible even later that day, or if the sun came out from behind clouds, etc. If they had just gone into an affected unit and used a little $179 moisture meter on the laundry wall they could have found the same thing.

Just offering some suggestions here.

JB

Ted Menelly

02-11-2009, 02:30 PM

John;

"Aaron you are clearly a great inspector and I'll never be at your level. Just offering some suggestions here. "

Gees

You forgot to give him a kiss and a hug.

A.D. Miller

02-11-2009, 02:32 PM

I would not say it is useless....I have found leaks that showed no staining (yet). Verified with moisture meters of course. Also stud bays with no insulation, on new construction. Once in a while you get a fist-pump moment. There are pretty good models out there now for $6K that will make you a hero, and cut back on complaint calls later. Everyone has to make up his own mind about the cost-benefit. It gives me some peace of mind when I do a scan after a week of rain and there is nothing showing at the ceiling. I'm not doing it for the client. I'm doing it for CYA.

John: They have an extremely limited us for HIs that does not warrant the expenditure. Period. And, if you are going to use it to look at a stain on a wall, you may be asked later (in court) why you didn't use it on every square inch of the house. How does that CYA?

The IR expert will be in the same boat. Its a very fuzzy science. While there might be one out there who will say the condition should have been detected, there are 10 other experts that will say otherwise. Since none of them was there that day, who can tell for sure?

John: A true hired gun can blow smoke that you have yet to imagine.

FL*R has done a great disservice to the inspector community at large by exaggerating the cameras' advantages. That exterior picture of the mid-rise condo complex where the leak in the laundry wall jumped out, that was a very lucky shot and not necessarily reproducible even later that day, or if the sun came out from behind clouds, etc. If they had just gone into an affected unit and used a little $179 moisture meter on the laundry wall they could have found the same thing.

John: Agreed in spades.

Aaron you are clearly a great inspector and I'll never be at your level.

John: Don't say things like that where JP and others can hear. I'll never hear the end of it.:D

A.D. Miller

02-11-2009, 02:34 PM

John:

You see what I mean? It's already started. . . . .:mad:

A.D. Miller

02-11-2009, 02:35 PM

you are clearly . . . at your level.

Ted: Don't go there . . .

John Brown

02-11-2009, 03:27 PM

Aaron you are also very funny sometimes. And I appreciate all the great professionals on this site, and actually learn something between fistfights.

Re IR: I think we are at one of those inspectionNews "agree to disagree" moments and so lets just drop it if thats ok.

thread drift: I'm noticing that there is more than a handful of TX inspectors who started out in the "internet age" (2001+ or so) who were working full time and have now disappeared. This is just anecdotal but I wonder why this drop off in the past year. Surely not because of E&O and the SOP. Any thoughts?

JB

Rick Hurst

02-11-2009, 03:38 PM

John,

I believe that E&O insurance requirements along with the economy knocked a dent in the cherry of a lot of newbie inspectors that had come into this field the last several years here in Texas.

Many have come and gone into the "expired" status with TREC.

rick

Ted Menelly

02-11-2009, 04:38 PM

It also has a great bit to do with the fabulous ecomomy we are experiencing at this time. As I stated somewhere the ones still doing the best at the moment are the long time folk of around 10 years or so and up. I moved here 4 1/2 years ago. unfortunately I have not gained a huge roll over base to be bhind me as of yet. I am in the in between of kinda sort of holding in there. Three to five years is where the roll over usually kicks in. Hopefully in this ecomomy i will have some of my past clients moving up. Of course I have experienced some of that alrerady. Hopefully it will continue.

Aaron

My level is just fine. Even at my Level the flies sre still ot landing on me :)

Ted Menelly

02-11-2009, 04:40 PM

It also has a great bit to do with the fabulous economy we are experiencing at this time. As I stated somewhere the ones still doing the best at the moment are the long time folk of around 10 years or so and up. I moved here 4 1/2 years ago. unfortunately I have not gained a huge roll over base to be behind me as of yet. I am in the in between of kinda sort of holding in there. Three to five years is where the roll over usually kicks in. Hopefully in this economy i will have some of my past clients moving up. Of course I have experienced some of that already. Hopefully it will continue.

Aaron

My level is just fine. Even at my Level the flies are still not landing on me :) (except when I don't use spell check.

I think you are pretty funny as well ;)

I do crack myself up sometimes.

Roger Hankey

02-11-2009, 04:44 PM

Jerry Peck

02-11-2009, 05:04 PM

They have an extremely limited us for HIs that does not warrant the expenditure.

I MOSTLY disagree as they are not "extremely limited". They are, however, and like every other TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL "limited" in what they can do because they are limited in what they are intended to do.

Can you take your moisture meter and measure the lumens on a surface or the sound level as a smoke alarm? Of course not! Moisture meters where not designed, constructed, or ever intended to be used for those uses.

I do agree that, FOR MANY HIs, the expenditure is not warranted.

Which leaves us at the fact that FOR MANY OTHER HIs the expenditure IS warranted.

How many HIs have and use a SureTest versus using a three-light tester? For those who use a three-light tester, absolutely, an infrared camera is an unwarranted expenditure. For those HIs who own and use a SureTest, and a Tramex (or other quality brand moisture meter), CO measuring devices, and other higher end tools and equipment SO THEY CAN DO A BETTER JOB, then, yes, an infrared camera is something they can CONSIDER adding to their arsenal.

Richard Stanley

02-11-2009, 05:05 PM

I would not report the stairs to be hazardous -unless they are for some reason other than they were built in 1914. I would report that the stairs did not conform to current standards. Then the ball is in the clients court. They can pursue a remedy if they so choose.

Ted Menelly

02-11-2009, 05:18 PM

John;

I like IR cameras but would never incorporate into my findings in a home inspection. I would offer it as an extra if they wanted to pay the expense for an IR inspection.

To just help me out in my findings in a home inspection and live and die with the results of me quoting my findings with it, no.

At 5 to 10,000 and better is it worth adding to home inspections just to help me with possible findings, no.

As far as what I would write up in stair findings with the turn of the century stairs?? I would note that todays standards for safety the stairs do not meet those standards and then explain items that could be done to correct it. Stating a code for it. Probably not and absolutely not necessary. Just stating todays safety stardards and possible corrections meeting those standards is far good enough. They concider you the expert and final end all. You do not have to act or try to prove to them you are the end all professional. State your findings and defer it to a contractor to get a cost for todays standards corrections. You are not making the corrections. Leave it to the professional in the field with out putting it out that you are the professional and end all answer to all.

John Brown

02-11-2009, 06:21 PM

Hi Roger,

Ted M has answered this quite nicely. In TX the new standard is:

(o) Interior and exterior stairways. The inspector shall report as Deficient:
(1) spacing between intermediate balusters, spindles, or rails for steps,
stairways, guards, and railings that permit passage of an object greater than 4 inches in
diameter, except that on the open side of the staircase treads, spheres less than 4-3/8
inches in diameter may pass through the guard rail balusters or spindles; and
(2) deficiencies in steps, stairways, landings, guardrails, and handrails.
Information on the specifications for stairways can be found in the IRC and at
Stairway Manufacturers' Association - SMA: Welcome to Our Home Page (http://www.stairways.org).
(p) Specific limitation for stairways. The inspector is not required to exhaustively
measure every stairway component.

(Above quote includes the "unofficial" commentary which specifically cites IRC so that makes it a safety issue IMHO.) Its all about failure to warn, thats all. They can keep their weird steep stairs if they want. As long as they can't say they weren't told. And yes, the remedy is tearing out the stair. Cheaper than what medicare would spend on grandma.

JB

Quote: "As far as safety is concerned, you better write up non-compliant stairs and the like. The house may be from 1914 but we live in 2009 and when grandma breaks her hip on the stairs your report better have said "stairs are hazardous" or words to that effect"

So what remedy would you recommend for the 1914 stairs, assuming the only adverse condition was that they where built to 1914 dimensions? Do you advise that the stairs be completely rebuilt to comply with ALL 2009 codes? Be specific, I'd really like to know.

Roger Hankey

02-11-2009, 10:06 PM

Ted & John,

Thanks for the reply. I know I do not have to include cost estimate, but ASHI requires a recommended course of action be included in the report. I wonder if you actually state "have a qualified carpenter rebuild or replace the stairway" in your report. If you don't make this sort of recommendation, what is it that you recommend? I believe that identification of an adverse condition, without presenting a recommended course of action is unprofessional and does not serve the needs of the client.

The recommended course of action need not design the repair, rather, it simply indicates whether the adverse condition should be investigated further, repaired, replaced, or the item simply be taken out of use if not essential to the structure.

I completely agree that the prudent inspector will report how the condition of an existing stairs differs from current practice, and that improvements to the stairs would "reduce the potential for falls". I am careful not to use words like hazardous or safety.

I believe that HI's who operate without a contract provision and/or description of services excluding any obligation to report conditions in an existing house solely because a component does not meet today's standards, have set themselves up for failure and high risk litigation. I do not believe it is possible to identify and report ALL such conditions.

Once you start down this path, I can envision a plaintiff's attorney will state since you reported the non-compliant stairs as a safety issue, which the client spent thousands correcting, you established a duty to conduct a full code compliance inspection. He could further argue that you were negligent when you failed to report the lack of tamper resistant electric receptacles in the room where their child was shocked. As you can see, there is no end to this mess, UNLESS your contract specifically states that identification of any adverse condition based on non-compliance with today's standards does NOT establish a duty to conduct a code compliance or safety inspection.

A.D. Miller

02-12-2009, 03:53 AM

an infrared camera is something they can CONSIDER adding to their arsenal

JP: Now don't get all conditional on us. Consider this: I'll keep my 12k and change and you play "thermographer" and we'll see whose wallet ligthens first:D .

A.D. Miller

02-12-2009, 03:59 AM

Quote: "As far as safety is concerned, you better write up non-compliant stairs and the like. The house may be from 1914 but we live in 2009 and when grandma breaks her hip on the stairs your report better have said "stairs are hazardous" or words to that effect"

So what remedy would you recommend for the 1914 stairs, assuming the only adverse condition was that they where built to 1914 dimensions? Do you advise that the stairs be completely rebuilt to comply with ALL 2009 codes? Be specific, I'd really like to know.

Roger: Even in newer homes you will find lots of "grandfathered", or pre-existing non-compliant installations and systems. It is not the HIs job to condemn these and require their removal or replacement with the latest and greatest. It is the HIs responsibility to point out the differences between what they have - the 1914 stairs, and what they could have - 2006 IRC-compliant stairs. Given the facts, the decision as to what alterations to make, if any, is entirely up to the client.

John Brown

02-12-2009, 07:14 AM

Hi Roger,

TX is not an ASHI state and conditions may be different where you are. The new TX report form has extensive disclaimer language in the preamble regarding code application. Some of it (and the SOP) is contradictory but the general gist is that any deficiency condition reported should be examined by a qualified professional specialist. The idea here is to put more of the burden on the client. And the client is constrained because the clock is ticking on inspection window. In other words, its a mess.

Plaintiff lawyers will try any trick in the book, including applying a "higher standard" to all aspects of the report when only one area happened to have been treated as such. Its part of the spaghetti on the wall strategy.

The new TX standard if followed exactly, including departure provision, should be a $800+ job, minimum. Any of you TX guys and gals taking off covers on electric water heaters to check element functionality and wire condition? How about electric furnace. Taking cover off or putting ammeter on to watch the sequencer dial up? I didn't think so. Half the recap is reporting the departure provision.

Maybe the folks who bailed in the past year did the right thing.....

John

Ted & John,

Thanks for the reply. I know I do not have to include cost estimate, but ASHI requires a recommended course of action be included in the report. I wonder if you actually state "have a qualified carpenter rebuild or replace the stairway" in your report. If you don't make this sort of recommendation, what is it that you recommend? I believe that identification of an adverse condition, without presenting a recommended course of action is unprofessional and does not serve the needs of the client.

The recommended course of action need not design the repair, rather, it simply indicates whether the adverse condition should be investigated further, repaired, replaced, or the item simply be taken out of use if not essential to the structure.

I completely agree that the prudent inspector will report how the condition of an existing stairs differs from current practice, and that improvements to the stairs would "reduce the potential for falls". I am careful not to use words like hazardous or safety.

I believe that HI's who operate without a contract provision and/or description of services excluding any obligation to report conditions in an existing house solely because a component does not meet today's standards, have set themselves up for failure and high risk litigation. I do not believe it is possible to identify and report ALL such conditions.

Once you start down this path, I can envision a plaintiff's attorney will state since you reported the non-compliant stairs as a safety issue, which the client spent thousands correcting, you established a duty to conduct a full code compliance inspection. He could further argue that you were negligent when you failed to report the lack of tamper resistant electric receptacles in the room where their child was shocked. As you can see, there is no end to this mess, UNLESS your contract specifically states that identification of any adverse condition based on non-compliance with today's standards does NOT establish a duty to conduct a code compliance or safety inspection.

John Brown

02-12-2009, 07:37 AM

Hey those are my people you are talkin about!? LOL

"I guess even fundamentalist, bible-thumping, Darwin-cursing, book-burning, NRA-supporting, SUV-driving, muddy-booted, Skoal-drooling, happy-clappy-churchian redneck morons have something to contribute to this world.:eek:"

Ted Menelly

02-12-2009, 08:00 AM

John: The precipitous drop in the number of Texas inspectors appears to be due to a number of factors, and is long overdue. The recent requirements for professional liability insurance coupled with the slowing real estate resale and the crashing homebuilding markets has finally begun to shake out some of the the flakes.

So then, as much as I hate to say this - excuse me while a take a shot of morphine for the pain that is sure to ensue, I suppose we have the Republicans to thank for the recent tidying up of the Texas HI profession. That would be Commandante Bush for his rape of the economy and the ever present Republican Guard in Austin for their uncanny ability to use HIs as the Guinea pigs for all their questionably constitutional governmental meddling.

I guess even fundamentalist, bible-thumping, Darwin-cursing, book-burning, NRA-supporting, SUV-driving, muddy-booted, Skoal-drooling, happy-clappy-churchian redneck morons have something to contribute to this world.:eek:

And, as to the IR camera thing . . . if you guys, you er, uh,
"t-h-e-r-m-o-g-r-a-p-h-e-r-s" could just stop for one moment.

Inhale and exhale deeply a few times.

Take a step back.

Focus.

Now try hard to envision just how stupifyingly ridiculous you appear to the rest of us; the sane ones.

Thermographers. Give me a fuquing break. If I were to start selling pirate costumes replete with the eye patches, earrings, parrots and swords, and told the endless sea of gullible home inspectors that donning these would give them secret super powers, I could make a fortune.:D

You are a funny guy Aaron

You just cannot help yourself now can you.

Mike Boyett

02-12-2009, 09:00 AM

My Notes from the TREC Inspectors Advisory Committee sub-committee teleconference working session on the Commentary can be found at my company blog. (http://borntxn.activerain.com/)

Bob Spermo

02-12-2009, 10:00 AM

Mike,

I read your notes! It appears that some people on that sub-committee are very dangerous! Are these sub-committee members appointed by the TREC Advisory Committee? Are these sub-committee members on the Advisory Committee? How much weight does this sub-committee hold in the eyes of the Advisory Committee? Thanks.

Richard Stanley

02-12-2009, 12:49 PM

A couple hundred years ago a few ol' boys got together and wrote something called the constitution. The lawyers have been writing commentary / ammendments, and the judges (more lawyers) have been writing interpretations ever since. It is more ambigious and subject to interpretation than ever. I suppose that was there intent - so they could get paid to argue the several sides to everything. We are a nation of lawyers, of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. It be that way.

My opinion of the commentary - I don't like it. Put it in the codes / sop in the first place, prescriptive or not. Kinda like writing a sentence and then publishing a book to explain what it meant. Of course the codes do that to sell more books.

Mike Boyett

02-12-2009, 12:53 PM

Ted Menelly

02-12-2009, 06:35 PM

Bob, the members of the SOP Commentary sub-committee are members of the Inspectors Advisory Committee that is appointed by TREC. Those same sub-committee members drafted the new SOP. The sub-committee holds tremendous sway with the full committee which, in turn, holds tremendous sway with TREC so it just ripples right up then on to us. I don't spend much time here on this board so I would encourage you to post your questions/comments on my company blog (noted in post #67) if you would. Thanks.

So Mike

Since you appear to be a we bit involved.

What do you think is coming down the road.

All inspectors should be licensed in every field and carry all the tools to do any form of inspection on any system and all componenets of each system all the way to the electric board????????????? A three day inspection on every home. Carry all manufacturers installation instructions and move, lift up, pull out, disasemble all systems and inspect every connection, screw, nut and bolt. Carry low e window checking devices to varify low e window installation. 200 hours a year con ed. IR cameras to picture every square inch of every home. Gees never intended or meant to be a home inspection. A visual inspection?????????????

"REDUCE" the risk in the purchase of a home "NOT" to find all possible concerns and risk in the home buying process. Cannot be expected to list all possible health or safety risk that is in every home.

Isn't all that in the contract???????

Lift shingles to inspect fasteners????????? Probably damaging some?????????? How many shingles, all, some, which, where????????????????? Inspect 200 shingles on the roof and the other hundreds could be falling off, or about to.

Seriously. What do you think is coming next????

Just curious questions to the inner workings.

Where this commitee meets someone has to put a big sign up and quote this

REDUCE the risk

Cannot be expected to

A.D. Miller

02-13-2009, 09:09 AM

OK, I revisited that last post and see that I left a few beans out of my coffee this morning.

I wanted to say that the TRECIC, though perhaps well meaning, is not qualified to draft technical documents at this level. That does not mean that they did not give it their best shot, and on their own time for free to boot. Unpaid and untrained people just cannot accomplish what the educated and qualified can in any given pursuit.

And, even if they had produced a world-class and flawless SOP, it would never have run the gauntlet of dreary-eyed (and minded) attorneys and brokers overseeing the process.

In other words, it was doomed to fail from the outset. A true Sisyphean task if ever there was one. For those of you observing Greek-free Friday, that would be a pointless task with no end and no reward.

I occasionally daydream that all of the members of the TRECIC resign en masse in protest of the TREC inspector policies and that no other inspectors apply for the resulting vacant positions. Additionally, all inspectors simultaneously and vigorously begin a unified letter writing campaign to their representatives on the Republican Guard in Austin seeking to be granted oversight either by their own autonomous commission or by one more closely related to our profession. But, that could happen only in the ideal world which exists in the dark recesses of my mind. A unified purpose and goal is not something that Texas inspectors can ever be accused of.

And, that goes for the rest of the country as well.:D

Ted Menelly

02-13-2009, 09:35 AM

You know, yesterday I inspected and early 50s home. I saw mostly copper but a touch of aluminum wire in one of the panel. Thinking about TREC I said, OK I will check the outlets and switches to see if in fact any were aluminum. I started in the kitchen, hmmmmmmmm, thats all I will say about that. All I will say is I did go to each room. I found no aluminum. You know. what is the difference if I did. All outlets were two prong. We write that up anyway for in need of repair. And yes if a representive amount of turns out to be aluminum then of course we write that up. There is an oldFP panel outside and a fuse box in the hall. I wrote the whole place up anyway.

I was on the roof, tried sliding under a few shingles to check fasteners, hmmmm, thats all I will say about that.

I thought about a lot of things that are or were going to be, hmmmm, that is all I will say about that.

A.D. Miller

02-13-2009, 10:46 AM

hmmmm, that is all I will say about that.

Ted: Agreed. . . .hmmmm, that is all I will say about that.

Jerry Peck

02-13-2009, 12:38 PM

You know, yesterday I inspected and early 50s home. I saw mostly copper but a touch of aluminum wire in one of the panel.

Ted.

What type of outer covering and what type of insulation?

In an early 1950s home I am suspecting that what you saw was tinned copper wiring.

Was the outer covering cloth and the insulation rubber? If so, it was tinned copper. The copper conductor and rubber insulation reacted to each other, so the copper was tinned as it was drawn out, it 'looks like' aluminum to some extent (sometimes to a great extent).

Richard Stanley

02-13-2009, 12:53 PM

"We write that up anyway for in need of repair"

Uh-uh. No mas, Senor Ted.

Ted Menelly

02-13-2009, 01:08 PM

"We write that up anyway for in need of repair"

Uh-uh. No mas, Senor Ted.

You don't write up two prong outlets in need of repair??

How many others here in Texas do not?

A.D. Miller

02-13-2009, 01:09 PM

"We write that up anyway for in need of repair"

Uh-uh. No mas, Senor Ted.

Richard: Correct. Now, in the parlance of the authors of the new SOP, it's just deficient, whatever that means.

Case in point. Typical post-tensioned slab-on-ground foundation. No significant differential settlement. No signs of functional distress. Only minor stuff like broken off outside corners and a couple of nails protruding from the slab edge. Is it deficient?

Another. Water pressure in the home measures 40psi exactly. That passes code muster. But, you know that if the homeowner uses any two fixtures at once the pressure will be inadequate. Is it deficient?

I can write these all day long and into the night. what is deficient is the SOP. It is beyond being in need of repair. Some things just cannot be fixed. Too F'd Up.

A.D. Miller

02-13-2009, 01:21 PM

You don't write up two prong outlets in need of repair??

How many others here in Texas do not?

Ted:

Actually, they are not in need of repair, or even deficient. Antiquated and undesirable, yes, deficient and in need of repair, no. Tell the client to replace them (if they have a lick of sense) or to put labels on them (if they are Israeli-Scots) and be happy.:D

A.D. Miller

02-13-2009, 01:36 PM

Ted:

Maybe my last post was not clear. The SOP says the receptacles are deficient, if amoung other things they:

(iv) are not grounded, if
applicable;

Now that is certainly crystal clear, right? "Not grounded" - they are all freaking grounded. Electricity does not work without a ground. "If applicable". Applicable to what?:D

Ted Menelly

02-13-2009, 01:42 PM

Sorry

erase

erase

erase

If the two prong have been changed to three prong and no proper ground wire added I write them up. Almost every home I go into they have done this when there use to be two prong. It is always an automatic write up.

Sorry about that. I was getting carried away with all the newer TREC crap.

Sometimes I just cannot control myself.

A.D. Miller

02-13-2009, 01:48 PM

erase . . . erase . . . erase . . .all the newer TREC crap.

Ted: Agreed.

Richard Stanley

02-13-2009, 05:25 PM

Open ground wiring - deficient? It has been presumably functioning in some capacity for 40+ years and it did lite up your tester... or at least part of it. I don't think that alone is deficient.
I just recommend upgrading to current standards - which they probably won't do - but I told 'em.

Eric Shuman

02-22-2009, 03:36 PM

Ted.

What type of outer covering and what type of insulation?

In an early 1950s home I am suspecting that what you saw was tinned copper wiring.

Was the outer covering cloth and the insulation rubber? If so, it was tinned copper. The copper conductor and rubber insulation reacted to each other, so the copper was tinned as it was drawn out, it 'looks like' aluminum to some extent (sometimes to a great extent).

Good point JP, although (and I know you know this) it could of course been aluminum added during upgrades or remodeling done to the house in the late 60s early 70s. I have seen that a few times in homes built before aluminum became popular.

Eric

Ted Menelly

02-22-2009, 04:11 PM

Good point JP, although (and I know you know this) it could of course been aluminum added during upgrades or remodeling done to the house in the late 60s early 70s. I have seen that a few times in homes built before aluminum became popular.

Eric

Romex type aluminum. It actually had one line into one panel and one line into the other panel. I am sure they could have run it to a junction box somewhere not seen but I did not find the end of it.

Joe Billman

01-21-2010, 07:25 AM

This still hasn't gone away. The "final" version is online at:
TREC - Inspector Standards of Practice Commentary Drafts - 11/2009 (http://www.trec.state.tx.us/inspector/SpecialTopics/SoP_Commentary_2009.asp)

Texas Inspectors, PLEASE take time to read this document and make comments. It is unlikely the TREC Inspector Inspector Advisoru Committee will listen, but we should make the effort.
If you don't think we need a 25 page "commentary" you should let TREC know.
I understand this may come up for approval as early as the Feb 8 TREC meeting.
This seems to be a feeble attempt to compensate for poorly written standards, and would likely have no effect other than to significantly increase liability for those of us who try to perform a good inspection.

If only we could get TREC to take action on the $200, 30 minute, 9 page handwrittne inspection.

A.D. Miller

01-21-2010, 07:30 AM

Texas Inspectors, PLEASE take time to read this document and make comments. It is unlikely the TREC Inspector Inspector Advisoru Committee will listen, but we should make the effort.

JB: I wholly support that motion.

If you don't think we need a 25 page "commentary" you should let TREC know.

JB: We do not, and I have.

This seems to be a feeble attempt to compensate for poorly written standards, and would likely have no effect other than to significantly increase liability for those of us who try to perform a good inspection.

JB: We are again in agreement on both counts.

If only we could get TREC to take action on the $200, 30 minute, 9 page handwrittne inspection.

JB: They already have by leaving the bar for entry into the profession at such a low level they are supporting the 9-page wonders.:D

Richard Soundy

01-21-2010, 02:07 PM

As much as I know I "will kick myself" I just cannot avoid some sort of response to this thread and the many comments in regards this matter.

Speaking as a HI (I prefer calling it a Property Condition Inspection - PCI) I clearly see the profession facing many hurdles in the industry, especially under the current market conditions and political regulations coming down the "pipeline"

Under the present setup, our industry will be controlled by other stakeholders in the Real Estate Transaction Process - The RE brokers, the lenders, the appraisers etc etc. Whether it is State or Federal, someone else is going to set the Standards of inspection and reporting same. What I state should sound familiar to you - inspectors pride themselves on their reporting method (the best...), some think it is copyright protected and cling to the information like it is gold, but as soon as FDA/HUD, LEEDS, HERS call for data (condition) under their terms, filed on their report the inspectors suddenly abide. May have something to do with money, no doubt!!??

Why is this happening? IMO the fact that HI or PCI remains a "splintered group who bicker like children" I quote from a fairly respected source. Our industry has very little hope in defining and controlling our destiny.

In fact when looking at all the stakeholders in the Real Estate Transaction Process our industry remains the weakest, although we provide a key, repeat KEY slice of data that every other stakeholder seeks in this important transaction. And, like birds of prey we get the raw end of the deal, both from a fee/cost point of view and Insurance/legal coverage.

Every battle that is carried out in this ad hoc splintered process the results appear to be a furtherance of "dumbing down" of our industry. We need to be fighting this on a united front to strengthen our profession (qualifications/credentials) and make sure we have common sense legislation in all states.

Just my thoughts folks.

Best Regards - Richard

A.D. Miller

01-21-2010, 03:36 PM

Under the present setup, our industry will be controlled by other stakeholders in the Real Estate Transaction Process - The RE brokers, the lenders, the appraisers etc etc.

RS: This has already come to pass.

IMO the fact that HI or PCI remains a "splintered group who bicker like children"

RS: Quite so, and much to the merriment of the "stakeholders" mentioned above.

Our industry has very little hope in defining and controlling our destiny.

RS: In its current state, I agree. That said, there is nothing that is impossible.

we provide a key, repeat KEY slice of data that every other stakeholder seeks in this important transaction.

RS: Again, true.

Every battle that is carried out in this ad hoc splintered process the results appear to be a furtherance of "dumbing down" of our industry.

RS: And that is simply because it benefits the "stakeholders" to keep the bar low and the inspectors ignorant, incompetent and infighting.

We need to be fighting this on a united front to strengthen our profession (qualifications/credentials) and make sure we have common sense legislation in all states.

RS: Yes, but how do you propose to bridge the chasms that exist between ASHI, CREIA, NAHI, INACHI, et al.? One of these will need to take a commanding lead in both membership and leadership.

I've been waiting these dozen years to see it happen, but have yet to see much progress in that arena. In Texas, it has been all downhill since 1997.

A forum such as this could be a good place to form a consensus among inspectors. If everyone who reads this would simply agree on one organization and vow to support it to the exclusion of the others, we could head in a direction of speaking with one voice.

That is where it needs to begin.

Richard Soundy

01-21-2010, 07:58 PM

RS: This has already come to pass.

AD: In terms of what is coming down the pipe what has already come to pass is minor.

RS: Quite so, and much to the merriment of the "stakeholders" mentioned above.

AD: Yes, at times I see it more as a conspiracy of "divided you fall".

RS: In its current state, I agree. That said, there is nothing that is impossible.

AD: Of course it is not impossible! In fact it is very doable and is dependable on approach/timing

RS: Again, true.

AD: Good - hold that thought dearly!

RS: And that is simply because it benefits the "stakeholders" to keep the bar low and the inspectors ignorant, incompetent and infighting.

AD: see my 2nd response above .....

RS: Yes, but how do you propose to bridge the chasms that exist between ASHI, CREIA, NAHI, INACHI, et al.? One of these will need to take a commanding lead in both membership and leadership.

AD:To the contrary. Attempting to merge would be very difficult - independent orgs and associations need not be a bad thing. You only need to unite on a common goal. Approach the task from the simple bottom-up method leaving those orgs, (et al.) as above for the tougher harder task until last.

I've been waiting these dozen years to see it happen, but have yet to see much progress in that arena. In Texas, it has been all downhill since 1997.

AD: I am aware of the Texas approuch to SOP's just figure out the "stakeholder" concerned! Do not despair, as stated before it is basically a timing thing.

A forum such as this could be a good place to form a consensus among inspectors. If everyone who reads this would simply agree on one organization and vow to support it to the exclusion of the others, we could head in a direction of speaking with one voice.

AD: I have no qualms it setting it up, but not under an organisation (at this stage). It would have to be under an agreement i.e. Memorandum which is a basic understanding of the goal and a signed contract of "ALIGNMENT" to meet the goal. There are many fine folks in this industry well qualified to guide this process - it will ultimately end up as a joint effort producing something that can truly become the "concensus".

That is where it needs to begin.

AD: Now is as good as any other time.