Re-inspections

[Brandon Adams]

Hello All!

I'm new to the inspection industry and was wondering when called upon to do a re-inspection, is there a new contract to be signed? A new report to be written? Any advice would be helpful. Thank you!

Brandon Adams
Riverside Home Inspection

[Scott Patterson]

Hello All!

I'm new to the inspection industry and was wondering when called upon to do a re-inspection, is there a new contract to be signed? A new report to be written? Any advice would be helpful. Thank you!

Brandon Adams
Riverside Home Inspection

The best advice I can give you is this little phrase;

Last man in, owns it!

With that said, I have in my agreement that any subsequent inspection related to the original inspection is covered under the terms of the original agreement. The report is up to you and what you want to cover, I write up a simple letter type report on the items I looked at.

I do not offer to do re-inspections and I charge at least half of the original inspection fee. I also require a paid receipt from the professional that did the repairs as I will only inspect items that have been professional repaired. This insures that my client will have a warranty or guarantee with that repair person if the repair fails during the time frame that it is covered. I tell my client that I do not guarantee any of the work that has been done and that my role is to verify that it has been corrected or not corrected.

[Brandon Adams]

Ok great, thank you Scott!

[John Arnold]

You may want to consult with your insurance company. Pretty sure FREA, for instance, does not cover re-inspections.

[Brandon Adams]

Thanks for the heads up. I have InspectorPro but i'll check it out.

[Jack Feldmann]

My insurance company covers re-inspections as an part of the original inspection. My contract is similar to Scott's and covers it as well.

[Jerry Peck]

The best advice I can give you is this little phrase;

Last man in, owns it!

With that said, ...

... that my role is to verify that it has been corrected or not corrected.

The only thing I would add to what Scott said is this added to the end of Scott's last sentence: " ... has been corrected or not corrected ... ", "however, I am not here to address whether it was corrected properly or not."

With many corrections you can only see that 'work was done at the specified location' but cannot even determine 'what work was done' at that location. Even simple things such as multiple tapping of breakers, you can see that the multiple tapping was 'changed' but not whether it was 'corrected' unless you are willing to check the torque of the terminal screws at the new fittings or the size ratings of the wire nuts, or ... (long list of 'or' items).

If you explain the limitation of what you 'cannot see' at the reinspection thoroughly enough, your client will recognize and understand that there is no benefit for them to pay you to do a reinspection ... unless they just want to pay you to accompany them at their walkthrough making small talk while looking at work and saying 'Yep, they did *something* there'.

[Garry Sorrells]

Brandon,
Look into WA law to determine if a re-inspection is considered the same thing as an original inspection. Meaning that a full report must be made following the SOP. Just a thought...

[Scott Patterson]

Brandon,
Look into WA law to determine if a re-inspection is considered the same thing as an original inspection. Meaning that a full report must be made following the SOP. Just a thought...

I don't recall any of the state laws specifically addressing a re-inspection. Having served on a state regulatory board and having written and interpreted HI laws/regulations; IMVHO, a reinspection if it is part of the and covered under the original agreement it wold not be an independent inspection.

I'm sure Texas would have a differing opine, they always do!

[Vern Heiler]

The only thing I would add to what Scott said is this added to the end of Scott's last sentence: " ... has been corrected or not corrected ... ", "however, I am not here to address whether it was corrected properly or not."

With many corrections you can only see that 'work was done at the specified location' but cannot even determine 'what work was done' at that location. Even simple things such as multiple tapping of breakers, you can see that the multiple tapping was 'changed' but not whether it was 'corrected' unless you are willing to check the torque of the terminal screws at the new fittings or the size ratings of the wire nuts, or ... (long list of 'or' items).

If you explain the limitation of what you 'cannot see' at the reinspection thoroughly enough, your client will recognize and understand that there is no benefit for them to pay you to do a reinspection ... unless they just want to pay you to accompany them at their walkthrough making small talk while looking at work and saying 'Yep, they did *something* there'.The problem I see all the time is the seller says everything requested has been corrected. When I go back for repair verification, many of the items have not been touched let alone repaired. As I posted once several months ago, the seller moved a sticker from a new thermal glass unit to one with a broken seal in the hopes of fooling the buyer.

[Jerry Peck]

The problem I see all the time is the seller says everything requested has been corrected. When I go back for repair verification, many of the items have not been touched let alone repaired. As I posted once several months ago, the seller moved a sticker from a new thermal glass unit to one with a broken seal in the hopes of fooling the buyer.

Vern,

That is why the rest of what Scott said is important - here is a critical part:


I also require a paid receipt from the professional that did the repairs as I will only inspect items that have been professional repaired.

If the client has a copy of the paid receipt from the professional/licensed contractor and the work is not done ... someone has a problem for providing a paid receipt for work not done. Notice that Scott did not say 'estimate sheet', Scott said 'paid receipt', with "paid" being a very critical factor.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,

That is why the rest of what Scott said is important - here is a critical part:



If the client has a copy of the paid receipt from the professional/licensed contractor and the work is not done ... someone has a problem for providing a paid receipt for work not done. Notice that Scott did not say 'estimate sheet', Scott said 'paid receipt', with "paid" being a very critical factor.
Armed with that there is little reason to have me re-inspect. Paid receipts are not normally given to the buyer unless it is a large expense. Ninety percent of the items are completed by a handyman and in some cases the seller, not my choice but the way it is. Paid receipts from them are nearly useless and often they missed something on the summary sheet they were supposed to fix, such as multiple items (windows, moisture damaged trim, etc.) even though they are all listed individually.

[Jerry Peck]

Armed with that there is little reason to have me re-inspect.

That is what I used to tell them and, I believe, what Scott was getting at.


Paid receipts are not normally given to the buyer unless it is a large expense.

Yes and no ... you are correct that paid receipts are not normally given to the buyer, but if the buyer asks for them as verification of the repairs and the buyer does not get the paid receipts, the buyer considers, should consider, the repairs as "Not Done".


Ninety percent of the items are completed by a handyman and in some cases the seller, not my choice but the way it is. Paid receipts from them are nearly useless and often they missed something on the summary sheet they were supposed to fix, such as multiple items (windows, moisture damaged trim, etc.) even though they are all listed individually.

Florida has an advantage over that happening as, once the house is offered for sale, the owner is no longer allowed to do their own repairs, and, if the owner does their own repairs the repairs are considered as "Not Done" at best, or "Done by unlicensed contractor" at worst (which is the same as "Not Done").

Another advantage in Florida, the way all the real estate contracts I saw in Florida, was that the seller was not obligated to 'fix anything', the seller's obligation was to 'spend money' to have things fixed. The seller fixing something by themselves has the effect of spending the cost of the material only, and if they want to hassle over it ... they will be stepping into the 'unlicensed contractor' pit of legality that they really should try to avoid.

In states where 'things have to be fixed', it is the buyer's right to make sure those things were 'fixed properly' and that would be paid receipts from a licensed contractor or other professional (not that that means the work was done properly, only that it was done by a properly licensed person - a properly licensed person may well have done it wrong in the first place and that may be why it now needs to be fixed).

[Scott Patterson]

That is what I used to tell them and, I believe, what Scott was getting at.

Yes and no ... you are correct that paid receipts are not normally given to the buyer, but if the buyer asks for them as verification of the repairs and the buyer does not get the paid receipts, the buyer considers, should consider, the repairs as "Not Done".



Yep, I do not encourage reinspections. If they want me to do a reinspection, I have rules and folks will follow them or I will not do the inspection. I do not need the grief that can come out of a reinspection. In my opinion, the buyer is due and should request the paid receipt for the repairs.

I'm afraid too many inspectors just see dollar signs and some easy money when it comes to doing a reinspection. For me, I don't need the additional business to pay for grocerys and the power bill. In all actuality, I would estimate that your liability increases ten fold when you do a reinspection.

[Jim Luttrall]

Yep, I do not encourage reinspections. If they want me to do a reinspection, I have rules and folks will follow them or I will not do the inspection. I do not need the grief that can come out of a reinspection. In my opinion, the buyer is due and should request the paid receipt for the repairs.

I'm afraid too many inspectors just see dollar signs and some easy money when it comes to doing a reinspection. For me, I don't need the additional business to pay for grocerys and the power bill. In all actuality, I would estimate that your liability increases ten fold when you do a reinspection.

I also discourage reinspections, not necessarily because of the increased liability but rather my experience that my client will have to have me out multiple times because the repairs are rarely completed and even more rarely completed PROPERLY.

I hate to take peoples money and not deliver a completed "product." (Yes, I know even a "fail" for an inspection is complete but most here will likely catch my meaning.)

I try to give the client a good understanding of what the problems are, why, and if possible a list of the wrong ways that unscrupulous trades people or novices may try to "repair" the problem.
And when possible a diagram or example of a proper installation.
I too require invoices before I reinspect.

One big problem I have encountered is the wording in the repair addendum.
When I read what the Realtor and client asked for it is sometimes totally different than what I reported.
So sometimes the repair may be right as far as what was asked for but totally wrong in result.
I always encourage Realtors to use "copy and paste" rather than rewording what I said in the report.
Just changing a word or two can alter the meaning as well as the result in a repair request addendum.

[John Arnold]

I do not do re-inspections, and I explain it to clients this way:

Most home inspectors, including myself, are generalists, somewhat like your primary care physician - a general practitioner.

Suppose you go to your PCP, concerned about a mole on your arm, for instance. Your doctor says, "I don't think that's a problem, but I want you to see a specialist, a dermatologist, to make sure."

The dermatologist tells you that this is potentially pre-cancerous, and he/she removes it.

Do you then return to your PCP and ask "Did the dermatologist do the right thing?" No, you don't, because the dermatologist is a specialist who knows more about skin lesions than your PCP does.

The repairs that I am recommending should be done by qualified contractors - specialists - who provide detailed receipts and who stand behind their work.

This seems to make sense to most clients.

[Ted Menelly]

I do not encourage re-inspections as well. As said above I am not going to warranty that anyone did anything right at all. You usually cannot see the entire fix. I always mentioned paid receipts and warranties for any work done to be passed on to the home buyer. My buyers always pass that on to the Realtor so she passes it on to the sellers Realtor.

I they want me to at least give a heads up that things "appear to be done" I will for a fee and that fee runs from 100.00 to half the total original cost. I also state that I am not there to be called into any legal battles. Legal battles can get ugly and take away from other clients I could be servicing.

But I almost all the time talk my clients out of a re inspection. When I have gone back and it was not a higher dollar home half of the fixes are not done anyway and it gets even more ugly. Upper end homes are almost always repaired with warranties getting back to the buyers.

[Eric Barker]

If you explain the limitation of what you 'cannot see' at the reinspection thoroughly enough, your client will recognize and understand that there is no benefit for them to pay you to do a reinspection

You might as well say the same for the initial inspection too since the limitation is the same. Heck, why even do inspections at all? :confused:

[Jack Feldmann]

While I don't encourage re-inspections, and try to get out of them, I will still do them when a client really wants it.
I frequently have the paid receipts to look at (most of the time), as well as the list of things they agreed to do (per RE contract).
I still run into situations where everything asked for was not done.

I'm doing one tomorrow for out of State clients. They just want another set of eyes to verify the stuff they asked for was done. I view re-inspections as an extension of building relationships. Each time they reach out to me, I'm building on our relationship. It might be the contact info for a plumber, or tree guy, or a great burger place. If they are happy with me, and trust me, they are more likely to refer me to people they know.

Most of my business comes for referrals from past clients. I also get a huge amount of business from past sellers of homes I inspected. I get referrals from building relationships, and you don't build relationships by turning people down.

[Dom D'Agostino]

John,

Your argument falls apart when you consider that everything a home inspector looks at initially, was installed or configured, by some kind of "specialist". Even before the re-inspection word has been uttered, you and I are there as inspectors, to cast judgment on someone else's work.

If we are qualified to judge the item as installed, why aren't we qualified to judge the repair?

It can be confusing to the average client.

I do them, and have no problem explaining any deficiencies.

Dom.

[Jerry Peck]

John,

Your argument falls apart when you consider that everything a home inspector looks at initially, was installed or configured, by some kind of "specialist". Even before the re-inspection word has been uttered, you and I are there as inspectors, to cast judgment on someone else's work.

If we are qualified to judge the item as installed, why aren't we qualified to judge the repair?

It can be confusing to the average client.

I do them, and have no problem explaining any deficiencies.

Dom.

You inspect the roof and your report states that the roof needs to have a repair because there is a soft area, possibly bad roof sheathing, and there is evidence of a leak.

When you do a re-inspection, do you say that the roof sheathing is okay (has been properly replaced is what 'okay' means) and the the roof leak has been repaired (no longer leaks is what that means)?

Or how do you word your re-inspection of those items?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[John Dirks Jr]

I too demand documentation of repairs to ensure they were done by qualified professionals. Otherwise, it just turns into a pissing match with some jackleg.

I do not provide any additional documentation. I say one of the following.

1) looks good

2) still wrong (explain further when needed)

3) inconclusive

When I tell about this process in advance, I rarely get hired for reinspects. No skin off my back as long as my initial inspection thorough and effectively reported on.

[Vern Heiler]

You inspect the roof and your report states that the roof needs to have a repair because there is a soft area, possibly bad roof sheathing, and there is evidence of a leak.

When you do a re-inspection, do you say that the roof sheathing is okay (has been properly replaced is what 'okay' means) and the the roof leak has been repaired (no longer leaks is what that means)?

Or how do you word your re-inspection of those items?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Here is mine;

At your request, a visual repair verification of selected items listed in the initial inspection report of [RPT:DATE OF INSPECTION:] was performed. The following report reflects the visual conditions of repaired items at the time of the verification only. Hidden or concealed defects cannot be included in this report. An earnest effort was made on your behalf to discover all repairs or replacements which occurred since the initial inspection.

It is beyond the scope of this report to ascertain the durability of any completed repairs, or how long they will last in the future. The following is an opinion report, expressed as a result of the repair verification.
The below listed items included on the summary of the initial report remain un-completed:

[Ian Page]

The best advice I can give you is this little phrase;

Last man in, owns it!

With that said, I have in my agreement that any subsequent inspection related to the original inspection is covered under the terms of the original agreement. The report is up to you and what you want to cover, I write up a simple letter type report on the items I looked at.

I do not offer to do re-inspections and I charge at least half of the original inspection fee. I also require a paid receipt from the professional that did the repairs as I will only inspect items that have been professional repaired. This insures that my client will have a warranty or guarantee with that repair person if the repair fails during the time frame that it is covered. I tell my client that I do not guarantee any of the work that has been done and that my role is to verify that it has been corrected or not corrected.
Are saying, Scott, that any perfectly acceptable repairs performed by the homeowner or other 'non-professional' are not inspected and would not pass your 'smell test' ? Seems a little dubious to me when we don't, as a rule, demand paid receipts on newly installed or repaired components completed before the inspection. Just sayin'...

[Russel Ray]

I'm in line with comments 18, 20, 23, and 24.

I have been doing re-inspections since October 15, 2001, which, coincidentally, is the day that I started my business. Never had a problem.

My original E&O insurer, Lloyds of London through a Cincinnati Ohio insurance broker available through my franchisor, didn't cover re-inspections. I used the logic expressed in comment 20 and eventually convinced them to change their practices, at least for my policy.

FREA E&O insurance doesn't cover re-inspections. At least, they didn't from October 15, 2001, to late 2012, which is the last time I checked with them. That's the only reason why they never got my business.

I charge half of the original inspection fee, and about 25% of my Clients take advantage of my re-inspection offer. Yes, I do specifically offer to do re-inspections, either alone or in conjunction with their final walkthrough.

[Jerry Peck]

Here is mine;

At your request, a visual repair verification of selected items listed in the initial inspection report of [RPT:DATE OF INSPECTION:] was performed. The following report reflects the visual conditions of repaired items at the time of the verification only. Hidden or concealed defects cannot be included in this report. An earnest effort was made on your behalf to discover all repairs or replacements which occurred since the initial inspection.

It is beyond the scope of this report to ascertain the durability of any completed repairs, or how long they will last in the future. The following is an opinion report, expressed as a result of the repair verification.
The below listed items included on the summary of the initial report remain un-completed:

Sounds to me that your clients would be better off to hire an electrician to do a reinspection of electrical, roofer for roofing, plumber for plumbing, etc. :p :)

[Vern Heiler]

Sounds to me that your clients would be better off to hire an electrician to do a reinspection of electrical, roofer for roofing, plumber for plumbing, etc. :p :)
The majority of my clients would be better of in a BMW than a Chevy too!:D

[Ted Menelly]

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Jerry Peck http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/business-operations-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/38660-re-inspections.html#post237157)
That is what I used to tell them and, I believe, what Scott was getting at.

Yes and no ... you are correct that paid receipts are not normally given to the buyer, but if the buyer asks for them as verification of the repairs and the buyer does not get the paid receipts, the buyer considers, should consider, the repairs as "Not Done".

__________________________________________________ _______________

I should have added that to what I said as well. I always tell my client that if repairs are done and the seller does not add paid receipts with someone warrantying/guarantying those repairs that they should consider them not done.

A hole in a wall patched and repaired obviously no problem. Caulking, paint, broken window and the like no problem as well. Electric concerns or plumbing, HVAC, foundation, roofing should all be covered by whomever did the work. If they do not cover it then the repairs are not worth the paid receipt.

As far as a home owner doing an electric repair, forget about it. It means nothing to me and should mean nothing to the buyer.

A buyer who brings dad the contractor Dad in to inspect the home means nothing in this real estate market today. The seller is not going to answer any concerns unless it is by a licensed Home Inspector. At least here anyway.

[Larry Morrison]

Some very good advice and a reminder to me once again, to add to my agreement the points discussed here with regard to re-inspections. I'm an expert when it comes to procrastination.

[Jerry Peck]

The majority of my clients would be better of in a BMW than a Chevy too!:D

The difference is that they drove up in a Chevy and you looked at what you could see and said this-and-this-and-this-does-not-look-right-and-needs-to-be-repaired, while after the tradesperson leaves in their BMW, the clients is asking if what the BMW driver did 'is okay' ... and you don't know what the BMW driver did because you were not there to see them spin donuts in the yard and then lay the sod back down. :D

[Vern Heiler]

The difference is that they drove up in a Chevy and you looked at what you could see and said this-and-this-and-this-does-not-look-right-and-needs-to-be-repaired, while after the tradesperson leaves in their BMW, the clients is asking if what the BMW driver did 'is okay' ... and you don't know what the BMW driver did because you were not there to see them spin donuts in the yard and then lay the sod back down. :D
I wasn't there when it was built either:confused:.

[Russel Ray]

I wasn't there when it was built either:confused:.
Bingo! That's why it's never made sense to me NOT to do re-inspections. I mean, what's the difference between doing a re-inspection and doing an inspection on brand new construction that was completed by the contractor and subcontractors last week? None!

[Jim Luttrall]

Here is mine;

At your request, a visual repair verification of selected items listed in the initial inspection report of [RPT:DATE OF INSPECTION:] was performed. The following report reflects the visual conditions of repaired items at the time of the verification only. Hidden or concealed defects cannot be included in this report. An earnest effort was made on your behalf to discover all repairs or replacements which occurred since the initial inspection.

It is beyond the scope of this report to ascertain the durability of any completed repairs, or how long they will last in the future. The following is an opinion report, expressed as a result of the repair verification.
The below listed items included on the summary of the initial report remain un-completed:

Vern, I get your meaning but, just my opinion, you might want to tweak your wording and sentence structure a bit. It does not flow well and is hard to understand.
In my opinion, simpler is better.

[Stuart Brooks]

I will do re-inspections once several conditions are met.
Understanding the original signed contract is in effect.
I have to be provided with a list of specifying what they want inspected.
It is not a complete re-inspection of the property.
I cannot guarantee materials or workmanship only that the items are in a condition such that I would or would not call it a deficiency unless the materials are completely wrong or the workmanship is unacceptable making the repair deficient.
I do not create a new report but only respond with comments on the items in the provided list.
I charge $150 for the first hour plus $100 per additional hour in 1/2 hour increments.

[Dom D'Agostino]

You inspect the roof and your report states that the roof needs to have a repair because there is a soft area, possibly bad roof sheathing, and there is evidence of a leak.

When you do a re-inspection, do you say that the roof sheathing is okay (has been properly replaced is what 'okay' means) and the the roof leak has been repaired (no longer leaks is what that means)?

Or how do you word your re-inspection of those items?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm sure you know I don't use vague terms like "looks OK".

A re-inspection is simply an inspection of an item (or list of items), no need to overthink it. Since I saw it prior to the "correction" or "repair", I'm confident in my ability to call out exactly what has been done. (Or not done, as is often the case.) And of course I disclaim anything I can't see or verify (they know this before I go back out).

Clients that don't know anything about a home, or our methods of construction, really appreciate a neutral set of eyes on the repair, as do out of state buyers who can't be present.

I don't actively promote them, but I see no reason to fear them. You just have to manage expectations and have the requisite skills to properly re-inspect the item.
Dom.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern, I get your meaning but, just my opinion, you might want to tweak your wording and sentence structure a bit. It does not flow well and is hard to understand.
In my opinion, simpler is better.
Thanks Jim, I inherited the wording when I bought the co. I threw it out there for some constructive criticism which I appreciate.

[Nick Ostrowski]

As much as I have tried to steer clear of reinspections in the past, I've seen too many mickey mouse repairs made by the professionals to ever say a reinspection is not worthwhile. I reinspected a chimney that was supposed to be relined and the "professional" only put one section of new terra cotta liner at the top of the chimney. From ground level it looked great. When you looked down the flue interior, it was still unlined and deteriorating. I reinspected a house and had a set list of 5 repair items. None of them were done despite the seller's claim that repairs had been completed. I was never called back to reinspect this mess ( http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/fireplaces-chimneys-solid-fuel-burning-appliances-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/14634-ants-attic.html ) but got the call after the buyer was now in the house for 9+ months. And the seller said repairs were completed.

As much as I want to just be done with reinspects, I know many of clients will be getting short changed by the sellers and repairs not done right.

[Jim Hintz]

I agree with many on here - I don't reinspect other people's work, period. I wasn't there to watch while the repairs were being made, so I sure won't "sign-off" on it. Best advice is to not put yourself between a rock and a hard spot - you'll end up getting "squeezed".

[Russel Ray]

I agree with many on here - I don't reinspect other people's work, period. I wasn't there to watch while the repairs were being made, so I sure won't "sign-off" on it. Best advice is to not put yourself between a rock and a hard spot - you'll end up getting "squeezed".
So I'm presuming that whenever you are asked to inspect a home that was just finished being built last Friday, you politely decline.

[Jim Hintz]

So I'm presuming that whenever you are asked to inspect a home that was just finished being built last Friday, you politely decline. Key word here Russell is "Re-inspect"

[Russel Ray]

Key word here Russell is "Re-inspect"
And yet you say, "I wasn't there to watch while the repairs were being made, so I sure won't "sign-off" on it." Well, you weren't there to watch a place being built, either, so you sure shouldn't sign off on any new construction, either!

What about the repairs that were completed a week before the inspection in response to my pre-listing inspection? You weren't there to see those repairs being made.

See how disingenuous your argument sounds?

[Nick Ostrowski]

I make it a point to include verbiage in my summary of inspected repair items that no warranty of these repair items is guaranteed or implied in any way, shape or form. At best, I will state that repairs appear to have been made and no visible defects were observed. At worst, I will say they are either incomplete or done incorrectly.

[Jerry Peck]

And yet you say, "I wasn't there to watch while the repairs were being made, so I sure won't "sign-off" on it." Well, you weren't there to watch a place being built, either, so you sure shouldn't sign off on any new construction, either!

What about the repairs that were completed a week before the inspection in response to my pre-listing inspection? You weren't there to see those repairs being made.

See how disingenuous your argument sounds?

Russel,

What you are missing is that at "THE inspection" the inspector is looking for things which do not LOOK RIGHT, whereas at "the RE-inspection" the inspector is SPECIFICALLY STATING that the work WAS DONE CORRECTLY.

There is a big ... make that ... BIG ... difference between looking for things that do not *look right* and verifying that *the work was done correctly*.

Those who do not, cannot, see and understand the different ... well ... hopefully you do not end up in court one day trying to explain to the judge that you really were not doing the re-inspection to document that the work was done properly, only that some work, of some kind, was done ... and the judge says to you: 'I think I understand ... you were either taking their money and not giving them in what you implied you were giving them, or you were not doing what you implied you were to do so they would know the work was done - if the work is not 'done properly' the work is 'not done', and you said the 'work was done' which means the work 'was done properly' ... so, were you taking their money and not giving them what they paid for or were you not doing what you said you would do?'

That is not a question I would want to have to try and think of 'the right answer' for as there is 'no right answer' for that question.

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet? 'No' is not the right answer, 'Yes' is also not the right answer, and anything other than a 'yes' or 'no' is not answering the question.

But ... go for it if you feel a need to or that there is a reason to. Not going to hurt me or my feelings, heck, I may even get to be testifying for the other side and collecting a paycheck for it. :cool: :)

I could even testify that, yes, I even warned them about the possible consequences of doing re-inspections.

[Jack Feldmann]

There are many repairs that are very easy to tell if they were corrected properly. Joist hanger installation comes to mind. I have a very good idea of how they are supposed to be installed, so during my initial inspection I may call out the lack of hangers, or improper types of fasteners, or missing fasteners. I ought to be able to tell if they were installed properly during a re-inspection. If not, I should probably turn in my flashlight and call it a day.

Like others have said, you don't have to be there to watch something being built to be able to inspect it. We do it every day. If there are pipes that are leaking, and you come back, and they are not leaking, they have probably been fixed! Of course, having a receipt from a repair guy saying they fixed the leaks helps too.

There are some things that you can't always "see" to verify what was done. But sometimes, you can't "see" the cause of the problem in the first place. Wet stain on a ceiling comes to mind. We know something is leaking, but without opening the drywall, you can't be positive of exactly what. Call out for evaluation and repair. They get someone to come out and see whats wrong, and fix it. They leave a bill, I come back, check where the stain was, see that its dry, and one can assume that it was fixed. I say assume, just as we assume there isn't a problem when we don't see a wet stain on a ceiling.

I don't see how a missed call on a re-inspection, is any different (more liability) than a missed call on the original inspection. We are all limited by what we can see (or can't see), and how things are performing.

If a HVAC unit is not working properly during the original inspection, I tell my client that its not working like it should, and a professional needs to evaluate it and make the needed repairs. When I come back, I check the unit just like I would during a regular inspection. If its working like it should (per normal inspection process), and a professional has gone thru it, then I'm just fine signing off on the repair. I treat the component like I would inspecting it for the first time. Sure, there may be some qualifiers there, but its not like we have never inspected a HVAC unit before.

For those of you that are afraid to do re-inspections, don't do them. It's pretty simple. This kind of reminds me of the discussion on "on site" reporting, and how many hold the position that its impossible, or somehow the inspections must be second rate. Just outside your comfort zone.

[Dom D'Agostino]

For those of you that are afraid to do re-inspections, don't do them. It's pretty simple .

I agree, it's something you are comfortable with or not.

Dom.

[Russel Ray]

Russel,

What you are missing is that at "THE inspection" the inspector is looking for things which do not LOOK RIGHT, whereas at "the RE-inspection" the inspector is SPECIFICALLY STATING that the work WAS DONE CORRECTLY.

There is a big ... make that ... BIG ... difference between looking for things that do not *look right* and verifying that *the work was done correctly*.

Those who do not, cannot, see and understand the different ... well ... hopefully you do not end up in court one day trying to explain to the judge that you really were not doing the re-inspection to document that the work was done properly, only that some work, of some kind, was done ... and the judge says to you: 'I think I understand ... you were either taking their money and not giving them in what you implied you were giving them, or you were not doing what you implied you were to do so they would know the work was done - if the work is not 'done properly' the work is 'not done', and you said the 'work was done' which means the work 'was done properly' ... so, were you taking their money and not giving them what they paid for or were you not doing what you said you would do?'

That is not a question I would want to have to try and think of 'the right answer' for as there is 'no right answer' for that question.

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet? 'No' is not the right answer, 'Yes' is also not the right answer, and anything other than a 'yes' or 'no' is not answering the question.

But ... go for it if you feel a need to or that there is a reason to. Not going to hurt me or my feelings, heck, I may even get to be testifying for the other side and collecting a paycheck for it. :cool: :)

I could even testify that, yes, I even warned them about the possible consequences of doing re-inspections.
Sometimes you really get weird on us here, Jerry.

You said, "What you are missing is that at "THE inspection" the inspector is looking for things which do not LOOK RIGHT, whereas at "the RE-inspection" the inspector is SPECIFICALLY STATING that the work WAS DONE CORRECTLY." That's not the case at all. I'm not doing anything that I didn't do at the original inspection. It's all about managing the Client's inspection, and if you want to say, "I'll do the re-inspection and specifically state that it was done correctly," well, I would say you are in a lot of trouble, not me.

Who is going to protect our Clients when the work actually WAS NOT done correctly, and, in some cases, not done at all? The Seller? Not! The Realtors? Not! As everyone likes to say, "Home inspectors are disinterested third parties." I, for one, have never agree with that. I am totally interested in the person who pays me. I'm on their side, and I will fight for them every step of the way. That includes checking to see whether repairs were done correctly, or not done at all.

About 25% of my 11,000+ inspections since October 2001 have included re-inspections because I do market them heavily. Never been to court in the home inspection industry but I have had a lot of buyers express dismay when I tell them that even though the seller said the repairs were done, they were not. Then those same buyers send me a nice thank-you gift and an invitation to the house-warming party, of which I go to about 10% of them.

[Rich Goeken]

That is what I used to tell them and, I believe, what Scott was getting at.

....Florida has an advantage over that happening as, once the house is offered for sale, the owner is no longer allowed to do their own repairs, and, if the owner does their own repairs the repairs are considered as "Not Done" at best, or "Done by unlicensed contractor" at worst (which is the same as "Not Done").....A

But, there is the situtation where in Florida some of the "contractors" do work worse that a DIY on their first project. :)

Jerry, this is an interesting law, not allowing the homeowner to do repairs if the repairs are done to current standards and, if necessary inspected by the local agency. Can you share its history?

[Jerry Peck]

But, there is the situtation where in Florida some of the "contractors" do work worse that a DIY on their first project. :)

Agreed, but when the property is changing hands the new owner has a contractor responsible for the work, not the previous owner. Note that this goes back one year from the date the property was listed for sale (or lease).


Jerry, this is an interesting law, not allowing the homeowner to do repairs if the repairs are done to current standards and, if necessary inspected by the local agency. Can you share its history?

It is in the contractor's licensing law which allows a homeowner to serve as their own contractor - with limitations.

An unlicensed person who owns the property is allowed to construct a house for themselves and their family only. They are not allowed to sell or rent/lease that house, or even offer it for sale or rent/lease, for one year after the house is completed (final inspections, CO, etc., the latest of any date which marks completion). The law goes further and says that the act of selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease is evidence of intent to do unlicensed contracting work ... i.e., nothing has to be proved, you put up that 'For Sale' or 'For Lease' sign before one year and you just admitted that you fraudulently did the work without a contractor's license.

The penalty/fine can be $5,000.00 for each incident. How many licenses would you have needed? That could be how many incidents you had. How many days did you do that unlicensed contractor work? That could be how many incidents you had. I've not heard of any fines to those extents, but those could be applied. Rarely are the persons caught, and rarely are they given the maximum fine, I think that if the state made a greater effort to enforce the law and to give the maximum penalty, the amount of unlicensed contracting would decline.

- - - Updated - - -


But, there is the situtation where in Florida some of the "contractors" do work worse that a DIY on their first project. :)

Agreed, but when the property is changing hands the new owner has a contractor responsible for the work, not the previous owner. Note that this goes back one year from the date the property was listed for sale (or lease).


Jerry, this is an interesting law, not allowing the homeowner to do repairs if the repairs are done to current standards and, if necessary inspected by the local agency. Can you share its history?

It is in the contractor's licensing law (Chapter 489 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0489/Sections/0489.103.html) ) which allows a homeowner to serve as their own contractor - with limitations.

An unlicensed person who owns the property is allowed to construct a house for themselves and their family only. They are not allowed to sell or rent/lease that house, or even offer it for sale or rent/lease, for one year after the house is completed (final inspections, CO, etc., the latest of any date which marks completion). The law goes further and says that the act of selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease is evidence of intent to do unlicensed contracting work ... i.e., nothing has to be proved, you put up that 'For Sale' or 'For Lease' sign before one year and you just admitted that you fraudulently did the work without a contractor's license.

The penalty/fine can be $5,000.00 for each incident. How many licenses would you have needed? That could be how many incidents you had. How many days did you do that unlicensed contractor work? That could be how many incidents you had. I've not heard of any fines to those extents, but those could be applied. Rarely are the persons caught, and rarely are they given the maximum fine, I think that if the state made a greater effort to enforce the law and to give the maximum penalty, the amount of unlicensed contracting would decline.

[Rich Goeken]

I agree with many on here - I don't reinspect other people's work, period. I wasn't there to watch while the repairs were being made, so I sure won't "sign-off" on it. Best advice is to not put yourself between a rock and a hard spot - you'll end up getting "squeezed".

Excuse me.... Don't you inspect "other people's work" when you go out on an inspection? As you weren't there when the house was built, and didn't see it actually being constructed---you won't inspect it? Unacceptable.

An inspector is hired to look at a home because the buyer does not have the training or experience in the trades, codes, and requirements for that area of the country, and needs a trained set-of-eyes that can inform them of any deficiencies. It is not unreasonable for that same buyer, after a deficiency has been addressed, to insure it is code compliant---have an unbiased set-of-eyes check it, especially with the lack of pride that seems prevalent in some "contractors."

There is no problem with spelling out re-inspection stipulations and costing prior to contract signing. But the re-inspection is a needed service. Put yourself in a unknowledgeable buyers place. "I have this report $$$ that says this is not right, I hired a contractor to "make-it-right" (sorry MH, had to steal). It looks different, but my inspector won't come out to tell me if it's OK or not. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place---what do I do?"

RE: Jerry, if you didn't see them tightening the first screw/hex when the home was constructed... how can you say you won't look at a screw/hex that was tightened recently?

[Vern Heiler]

Agreed, but when the property is changing hands the new owner has a contractor responsible for the work, not the previous owner. Note that this goes back one year from the date the property was listed for sale (or lease).



It is in the contractor's licensing law which allows a homeowner to serve as their own contractor - with limitations.

An unlicensed person who owns the property is allowed to construct a house for themselves and their family only. They are not allowed to sell or rent/lease that house, or even offer it for sale or rent/lease, for one year after the house is completed (final inspections, CO, etc., the latest of any date which marks completion). The law goes further and says that the act of selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease is evidence of intent to do unlicensed contracting work ... i.e., nothing has to be proved, you put up that 'For Sale' or 'For Lease' sign before one year and you just admitted that you fraudulently did the work without a contractor's license.

The penalty/fine can be $5,000.00 for each incident. How many licenses would you have needed? That could be how many incidents you had. How many days did you do that unlicensed contractor work? That could be how many incidents you had. I've not heard of any fines to those extents, but those could be applied. Rarely are the persons caught, and rarely are they given the maximum fine, I think that if the state made a greater effort to enforce the law and to give the maximum penalty, the amount of unlicensed contracting would decline.

- - - Updated - - -



Agreed, but when the property is changing hands the new owner has a contractor responsible for the work, not the previous owner. Note that this goes back one year from the date the property was listed for sale (or lease).



It is in the contractor's licensing law (Chapter 489 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0489/Sections/0489.103.html) ) which allows a homeowner to serve as their own contractor - with limitations.

An unlicensed person who owns the property is allowed to construct a house for themselves and their family only. They are not allowed to sell or rent/lease that house, or even offer it for sale or rent/lease, for one year after the house is completed (final inspections, CO, etc., the latest of any date which marks completion). The law goes further and says that the act of selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease is evidence of intent to do unlicensed contracting work ... i.e., nothing has to be proved, you put up that 'For Sale' or 'For Lease' sign before one year and you just admitted that you fraudulently did the work without a contractor's license.

The penalty/fine can be $5,000.00 for each incident. How many licenses would you have needed? That could be how many incidents you had. How many days did you do that unlicensed contractor work? That could be how many incidents you had. I've not heard of any fines to those extents, but those could be applied. Rarely are the persons caught, and rarely are they given the maximum fine, I think that if the state made a greater effort to enforce the law and to give the maximum penalty, the amount of unlicensed contracting would decline.
So your whole argument is based on repairs that require a permit! Very few of the items in a typical report require having a permit pulled, and the ones that do I would expect to see a receipt from a licensed contractor.

[Nick Ostrowski]

When you think about it, we shouldn't be doing reinspects at all UNLESS the seller is providing receipts from the professionals who did the work. I am assuming most of us have verbiage in our contracts or the inspection report that states all necessary repairs should be completed by licensed qualified professionals in that particular field of expertise. If receipts cannot be provided before you start the reinspect, then we are essentially not even following the advice we put in our reports and signing off on work done by non-professionals.

[Jack Feldmann]

There is a huge amount of items that get repaired that do not need a professional to do.
Replacing a disposal? Installing joist hangers? Fixing a dripping faucet?
While there are cases where people have to hire this stuff out, I would guess that just about everyone on this forum would do these things ourselves and not hire it out. I would further guess that most of us are not licensed professional repair contractors.

Obviously, there are many things that would need a licensed professional to do the repairs. But if there is a leaking drain pipe under a sink, and I come back and its not leaking, and it looks like a good repair, do I really need a receipt from a licensed plumber? When I inspect a house, and look under the sink, and everything looks good, and its not leaking, I don't ask for proof that it was installed by a licensed contractor. I really only care if it looks like it was installed properly, and is functioning as intended.

This sounds like some sort of double standard.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Not sure how it is a double standard Jack. Yes, many of us will do our own repairs at our houses but we already own these houses and are willing to take the task on ourselves......and it's not part of a real estate transaction. Nobody is affected by this but us if we somehow screw something up. And of the repair examples you listed, I would say at least 50% of all my clients do not have the skills or knowledge to do these things.

If we call out an item in a report, state it should be serviced / repaired by a professional, and then agree to inspect and report on a DIY repair that was done by the homeowner, we have just contradicted our own recommendation.

[Vern Heiler]

Not sure how it is a double standard Jack. Yes, many of us will do our own repairs at our houses but we already own these houses and are willing to take the task on ourselves......and it's not part of a real estate transaction. Nobody is affected by this but us if we somehow screw something up. And of the repair examples you listed, I would say at least 50% of all my clients do not have the skills or knowledge to do these things.

If we call out an item in a report, state it should be serviced / repaired by a professional, and then agree to inspect and report on a DIY repair that was done by the homeowner, we have just contradicted our own recommendation.
Recommendations are like opinions! Mine are ignored on a daily basis by my wife:D. It's a "Recommendation" not a commandment!

[Rich Goeken]

......If we call out an item in a report, state it should be serviced / repaired by a professional, and then agree to inspect and report on a DIY repair that was done by the homeowner, we have just contradicted our own recommendation.

I think the disagreement here is as stated----commanding, as someone put it, to only done by a "professional." Perhaps to satisfy some of the comments here, the wording should be changed to allow someone to make minor repairs if that person is competent enough to do it correctly. A re-inspection should satisfy that the work is done to specs or code. In fact, I have known friends to pull a permit, do the work & have it inspected by the town.

It is not unreasonable to state up front that re-inspections cost extra---each time. A seller should understand that if he screws it up, he would be paying for another re-inspection after the "professional" in that trade has performed their work.

You don't want to turn work away.

[Dave Mortensen]

Interesting topic, in Alaska we often do re inspections for other inspectors if they are out of town or hurt for example and the realtor needs it done. After reading all the comments it seems likely that our necks are out a mile when we perform re inspections for (or as) a third party.

Here's the language used in the Alaska statute: Sec. 08.18.085 Legal Action Against Home Inspector.
c) A person may not bring an action against an individual registered under
this chapter for damages that arise from an act or omission relating to a
home inspection performed by the individual unless the person
(2) received the home inspection report with the written consent of the
party for whom the inspection was originally performed

So that means if a second buyer gets written permission from the first buyer, then the inspector can be liable!!! I have language in my contract now that limits the inspection to just the original client, just don't know if it'll hold up in court someday.

Also: We perform re inspections for a subsequent buyer (meaning we did the initial inspection
for someone else), do any of you even do third party re inspections? I get asked all the time
to do them.

I can't find the language in a contract that would stand up in court that I am not liable for a 3rd party claim when it's actually in the State Statute that it's allowed. Can you have "stronger" language in your own contract? (Maybe it's a question for an attorney...)

[Ted Menelly]

Interesting topic, in Alaska we often do re inspections for other inspectors if they are out of town or hurt for example and the realtor needs it done. After reading all the comments it seems likely that our necks are out a mile when we perform re inspections for (or as) a third party.

Here's the language used in the Alaska statute: Sec. 08.18.085 Legal Action Against Home Inspector.
c) A person may not bring an action against an individual registered under
this chapter for damages that arise from an act or omission relating to a
home inspection performed by the individual unless the person
(2) received the home inspection report with the written consent of the
party for whom the inspection was originally performed

So that means if a second buyer gets written permission from the first buyer, then the inspector can be liable!!! I have language in my contract now that limits the inspection to just the original client, just don't know if it'll hold up in court someday.

Also: We perform re inspections for a subsequent buyer (meaning we did the initial inspection
for someone else), do any of you even do third party re inspections? I get asked all the time
to do them.

I can't find the language in a contract that would stand up in court that I am not liable for a 3rd party claim when it's actually in the State Statute that it's allowed. Can you have "stronger" language in your own contract? (Maybe it's a question for an attorney...)

So just write limits in your contract stating this report is solely for them and cannot be transferred to any other party interested in the real estate transaction of the home the report is for.

If the state can do it and has no language stating you can't then that pretty much protects you.

Besides. They actually have homes in Alaska????

[Dave Mortensen]

So just write limits in your contract stating this report is solely for them and cannot be transferred to any other party interested in the real estate transaction of the home the report is for.

If the state can do it and has no language stating you can't then that pretty much protects you.

Besides. They actually have homes in Alaska????



Yes, I haven't seen an igloo in years! I guess I don't understand your response, the state says a 3rd party may use the report in a subsequent transaction. Wouldn't my adding that they cannot be contrary and thus not allowed?

[Ted Menelly]

"If" the person that originally got the report signs it over to them.

What I basically said was if the state says you cannot put wording in your contract that they cannot sign it over to someone then you cannot. If they don't put the wording in there that you cannot then I guess you can. What would be stopping you. We all put wording in that the report is only for the person we did the inspection for. In our state preamble it basically says do not rely on this report as things change. You should get your own inspector.

[Dave Mortensen]

Ok, I guess that's what I'm left with. I already have that language in my contract so I'll go with it. Thanks.

[John Kogel]

Ok, I guess that's what I'm left with. I already have that language in my contract so I'll go with it. Thanks.

Like you said, that is a good question to ask a lawyer. The wording you posted seems to indicate that the report is the property of the original client, and he can pass it on to someone else.
I would have a lawyer look over my contract and see if it is worded strongly and clearly enough. You need to protect yourself from some goof you've never met calling you up 15 years from now.

- - - Updated - - -


Ok, I guess that's what I'm left with. I already have that language in my contract so I'll go with it. Thanks.

Like you said, that is a good question to ask a lawyer. The wording you posted seems to indicate that the report is the property of the original client, and he can pass it on to someone else.
I would have a lawyer look over my contract and see if it is worded strongly and clearly enough. You need to protect yourself from some goof you've never met calling you up 15 years from now.

[John Kogel]

Ok, I guess that's what I'm left with. I already have that language in my contract so I'll go with it. Thanks.

Dave, I advise you to have a lawyer look over your contract and get the strongest language possible .
The thought that your inspection report can be legally handed to a 3rd party is bad enough, without having the worry of being resposible to someone you've never worked for. You didn't buuild the house.
Somebody in the real estate legality dept got their wires crossed on that one.

I ocassionaly inspect the same house twice, but the new people get a fresh inspection and a new report. I give them the full benefit and charge the full amount.