PDA

View Full Version : Report terms



Bob R
07-30-2014, 04:56 PM
Black or white, functional or not functional, these are pretty straight forward for items that come on or don't. It is the "Grey areas" I would like to get more opinion on, such as... Plywood on the walls and ceiling of a attached garage. Exposed individual conductor wiring, that is otherwise correctly wired. Bath fans exhausting into the attic. These are just few examples of what I frequently find and consider "Grey Area Items". The reason they are grey in my opinion is they are associated to building code or workmanship. Any one of these items above could arguably be considered "Functional" if it weren't for the codes we know are used elsewhere in the country. But... not all areas of the country use these clear guidelines. The majority of the territory I inspect happens to be one of them.

My struggle is knowing how to characterize the grey area items in the report with the following descriptives so they are in the proper perspective for the client as well as the seller who hopefully will become a future client.

Serviceable / Functional
Require repair or Repair / replace (by who's standard)
Not Functional (but it kinda does!)
Deficient (by what standard?)
Attention (Maybe)
Evaluate (why, if it's currently working and nothing says it has to be different)
Simply describe it (but then why was it brought up?)
Comment

Hopefully this post can provoke thought that will produce better reports

Jerry Peck
07-30-2014, 06:15 PM
Functioning as intended: then define that in your report (very little is actually functioning as intended when defined as being installed and used as and for it was intended to be installed and used to the extent visible and accessible, and that it is doing so properly as can be determined to the extent it is visible and accessible).

Not functioning as intended: gets comments as to what you found that is not functioning as intended. Not installed or being used as it was intended to be installed and used, and / or not doing so properly.

Mark Reinmiller
07-30-2014, 06:52 PM
I handle these items in various ways. Where codes have changed since the house was constructed I try to point out why the item is deficient. In some cases I consider it a defect (like exposed light bulbs in closets). In others a lack of GFCI receptacles, I recommend them as an improvement. Bath fans venting to the attic? I have seen thousands of them where they have not caused any moisture issues (assuming they are ducted up above the insulation at least). If it appears that they have I recommend an exhaust duct to the exterior. I believe you can note things in the report, recommend improvements, etc. Not everything noted has to be a defect.

Scott Patterson
07-30-2014, 07:07 PM
I tend to describe what I have found, it's condition and what it is or is not doing! Let's say you find a bathroom vent fan that is exhausting into the attic. Well they are suppose to vent to the exterior of the building envelope. No ifs ands or buts.....

Keep in mind that pretty much everything we do as a home inspector is related to building codes or good building practices. So not calling something out because it also addressed in a building code is just plain sillily.

If it's not working then just say so, no need to try and create a special phrase to cover it.

Of something is working or I don't feel it has a problem, I use the phrase "Appears servicable", which means it is working or I don't see a problem with it.

If something needs repairs, that is pretty much what I say... Repair it!

John Dirks Jr
07-30-2014, 09:02 PM
Bob,

You're clouding your own water by trying to categorize various problems. The job is simpler than that if you remember a few things. Of them, the most important are 1) you are hired to criticize the house and its systems. 2) in doing your job correctly, people will get pissed off.

1) Describe the problem.

2) Say why it's a problem.

3) Tell them to get it fixed by a qualified contractor.

CASE CLOSED!

Forget all these descriptive terms that are designed to devalue otherwise good information.

Bob R
07-30-2014, 11:22 PM
So Scott and John
I should tell a buyer that something needs repair when it is otherwise functional but just because it doesn't meet "code". A code that does not apply and doesn't exist where the inspection is taking place.
Another point I feel I need to make about things consider as "good building practice". Isn't that just a catch all term, that includes quality of workmanship. Most SOPs say that an inspector should refrain from commenting on the quality of workmanship.
I am pressing this issue because times have changed and whether we like it or not lenders are granting loans and insurers, coverage, based on what we say and how we say it in our reports. So I for one want to get off the report treadmill and try to put more thought into my reports to better serve my clients needs by keeping things in perspective.

Ken Rowe
07-30-2014, 11:37 PM
I basically break down my reports to three sections:

Action Items: Things which need immediate repair or replacement, health and safety issues, and expensive items. Such as roof replacement, non functioning appliances, rotten windows, structural issues, mechanicals past their intended service life, non functioning or lack of smoke detectors etc.

Consideration Items: Things that are easily repaired or things the clients needs more information from the seller about. Such as lacking appropriate GFCIs, lack of water barrier under vinyl siding, lack of kick out flashing, dried water stains, checking permits history when remodeling has been done, etc.

Routine Maintenance Items: Cleaning the dryer vent, changing furnace filter, torn screens, etc.

Everything else that doesn't present a problem gets labelled Inspected (functioning as intended), Not Present, or Not Inspected (giving a reason)

To me, "Plywood on the walls and ceiling of a attached garage. Exposed individual conductor wiring, that is otherwise correctly wired. Bath fans exhausting into the attic" are not grey areas. They would be action items. If you don't believe there is a fire wall in an attached garage, this would be an action item (health and safety). However, if you suspect there is a fire wall underneath the plywood, I would write it up as a consideration item and suggest the seller verify the presence of a fire wall. Single strand wiring (health and safety). Venting into the attic (expensive repair, not something most homeowners can do themselves).

Alton Darty
07-31-2014, 02:16 AM
So Scott and John
I should tell a buyer that something needs repair when it is otherwise functional but just because it doesn't meet "code". A code that does not apply and doesn't exist where the inspection is taking place.
Another point I feel I need to make about things consider as "good building practice". Isn't that just a catch all term, that includes quality of workmanship. Most SOPs say that an inspector should refrain from commenting on the quality of workmanship.
I am pressing this issue because times have changed and whether we like it or not lenders are granting loans and insurers, coverage, based on what we say and how we say it in our reports. So I for one want to get off the report treadmill and try to put more thought into my reports to better serve my clients needs by keeping things in perspective.

According to manufacturers installation instructions.
Bath exhaust fan manufacturers require that the fan exhaust to the exterior of the structure. No mention of code, or of building standards. It is extremely doubtful that any of the manufacturers would endorse, or that they ever endorsed, terminating an exhaust fan into the attic space.

The same with the exposed individual conductors, not listed, labeled or approved for that application or that manner. Again, it is doubtful that a manufacturer of any wiring would endorse a method not specifically approved by UL, and that would include sheathing, the use of bushings, clamps and the like.

Wood paneling used at ceilings and walls separating garages from living space is a fire safety issue, it doesn't get much plainer than that.

These are not gray areas, they are significantly deficient. Your client will sell this home in three years and the inspector that the new buyer employs will call these issues out. Your client will now be on the hook for price concessions or repairs to items that are significantly deficient. The carrier of my homeowners policy will perform a site review and will often lower premiums when the home is considered to be in good order, any of the items that you mentioned bring with them higher premiums. Just another factor to consider...

Raymond Wand
07-31-2014, 04:01 AM
Have never used any of the terms as listed by OP.

My report states the issue, location, time for repair/replacement/service and so forth, followed by a time frame, implication and rough cost. Clear concise and no one has ever had a problem with interpretation or grey areas. KISS.

Bob Wisnewski
07-31-2014, 05:38 AM
Like John said
Detect
Evaluate
Direct

We are not code inspectors.

Scott Patterson
07-31-2014, 06:18 AM
Bob R, what you are wanting to do will eventually get you into trouble. You are increasing your liability by wanting to not rock the boat, so to speak. We are hired as a third party to report on defective, improperly installed and unsafe items in a home. Gee, this sounds just the same as what building codes cover!

Question: if you find an electrical panel that is downstream from the service panel and the grounds and neutrals are mixed together and the neutrals are bonded to the panel; do you not report it as being wrong? The electrical system will still work wired like this.

I understand the argument that we are not code inspectors, but do you realize that pretty mush everything we do during an inspection is based on current codes and manufacturers standards? If we did not have published references like codes or manufacturers standards we would all be basing our findings on folklore. Yes, some are prohibited by their home inspector license law from reporting that X is not too code,unless they jump through hoops, so this can be circumvented by changing the wording and removing the word code. I think NC is the only state that has this restriction.

The terms Good Building Practices are used all of the time and infer that the item was built to a proper standard that is used by the majority of folks. The same goes for the term Standard of Care which is used by many to indicate that this is what majority in a profession are doing, like home inspectors.

I say all of this in hopes that folks will realize that writing a soft report will make the real estate agents happy but in the long run you will be the one at risk.

If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig!

Don Hester
07-31-2014, 07:55 AM
Another thought on all of this. Since some things can be installed incorrectly and not have been an issue for the current tenant that can all change with the new occupants.

Everyone lives differently and will stress systems differently. Such as as the bath fan, maybe the previous occupants never used the fan or showered, the new people do and because it was not installed properly start to become an issue. You have to be careful with those items.

Also I would like to echo Scott Patterson, pretty much everything we do deals with codes and specs. This is an area I am constantly trying to get stronger in. Having knowledge on when certain items come into play helps in how you write your report.

Mike Kleisch
07-31-2014, 08:32 AM
Am I missing something where it is required to callout for a professional??? Seems to me you add in more liability by calling out for a professional, or offering a repair method.

Goes back to the argument of what if there are other ways to make the repair, or a way that would have been cheaper to do... I remember being told, "Don't be the architect or engineer it's above your pay scale, note the concern, let them figure out a solution, give it a thumbs up or down."

I would just report the problem(s) and that's the end of it. Up to the client on what they want to do with that information.

Such as:

Bathroom sink drain works, but drainage is very slow.

Bath fan exhausts into attic, and not to the exterior of the building.

Handrail on deck is loose and wobbles.

Calling for a professional might imply to a homeowner they need a plumber for the sink, HVAC guy for the bath fan, carpenter for the handrail, when one handyman could make all those repairs, or the homeowner thinks they can't make the repair because it needs to be a professional.

Sure, people have asked how I would fix it and I would answer, but I wouldn't put it in a report.

In my experience, a "grey" area, or is it a "gray" area, is something that I find that is wrong, but is it worth the fight to be right about, most of the time it is...

Don Hester
07-31-2014, 08:45 AM
Mike, Some things I feel we should give guidance on. Heck many of the items we see wrong were installed by the so called "Professionals".

For example here in our state it not just okay to have the bathroom exhaust ducted to the exterior, you also have to have it insulated, R-4. So I write that.

This goes many items I see.

Scott Patterson
07-31-2014, 08:57 AM
Many State and association SoP's require you to tell the client what they need to do, like call a plumber, electrician, HVAC contractor etc... All we need to do is give them the direction they need to turn, we do not need to and should not design the repair even if it is as simple as replacing a washer in a faucet. Now things like putting in a clean air filter, I think we can go ahead and state that without much fallout.

Yes, we need to tell the to use a qualified professional... We have no control over this or who they endup using but if we tell them to use a professional our liability is nullified verses if we tell them to use an unlicensed handyman who screws up and then our phone rings......

It's all about risk management... Handymen are great for replacing rotted door frames and the like but I have seen more screwed up plumbing and electrical from the local Handyman. Sure some are very talented but we have no control over who will do the work; Yes the same can be said about the professional folks but they normally have insurance under their license to help protect the consumer if they burn the house down, etc... :D

Jerry Peck
07-31-2014, 09:11 AM
Yes, we need to tell the to use a qualified professional... We have no control over this or who they endup using but if we tell them to use a professional our liability is nullified verses if we tell them to use an unlicensed handyman who screws up and then our phone rings......

It's all about risk management... Handymen are great for replacing rotted door frames and the like but I have seen more screwed up plumbing and electrical from the local Handyman. Sure some are very talented but we have no control over who will do the work; Yes the same can be said about the professional folks but they normally have insurance under their license to help protect the consumer if they burn the house down, etc... :D

Well said.

If the home inspector just reports that xyz is not working and leaves it to anyone and everyone else to decide whether or not it needs to be repaired and who should repair it ... and the repair, lack of repair, etc., leads to complications - the home inspector could be called onto the carpet for not telling them it needed to be repaired and that a professional should make the repair, and, by the way, here is the bill for the funeral expenses, oh, you will also be receiving a demand letter from our attorney for your entire met worth, the net worth of your spouse, and the net worth of your children ... :(

Mike Kleisch
07-31-2014, 09:45 AM
Fair enough, I was just wondering as our State's SOP does not require HI's to specify how repairs are to be addressed, but, at the same time, does not prevent it either.

I was looking at it from the standpoint of just reporting the problem and it being up to the client on what they want to do. But, we have different rules in WI, for example, a homeowner can make repairs to their own plumbing in their own residence, but if they hire someone, by State law they have to be a licensed plumber, and the State will go after those that try to do plumbing without a license or even advertise it. It's pretty much getting to the same point with electricians.

Bob R
07-31-2014, 09:52 AM
Scott
So... if I'm correct in understanding what you just said:
If you were a judge in a court of law and a man was before you with evidence he was "J" walking. You would feel you had no choice but to convict him and sentence him to life in prison. After all "J" walking is illegal in most municipalities but not everywhere and he may have caused an accident where someone could have been hurt or killed.

You may call it a "soft report". I would like to think it is a report in the proper perspective.

I have lived in a house since 1999 that was constructed in 1980. It is still in the county jurisdiction. There are several issues such as, open closet light bulbs, elec panel in the closet, bath fans in attic, 14ga wire on 20amp breakers, non-code stairway and plywood in garage. I have lived here all that time without incident. Granted... there would be a larger safety margin if it had been built to a higher standard but I don't think condemning a home to 10s of thousands of dollars of so called "repairs",(like a stairway retrofit that would actually render my home in general, non-functional) as realistic when a home can be and is otherwise functional.

Mark Reinmiller
07-31-2014, 10:34 AM
While I like to use codes as a guide, they are often misused. Regarding venting of bathroom exhaust fans. Unless I am mistaken, this requirement first appeared in the 2006 IRC. So, does this make every installation before that time a defect, especially if there are no signs of problems? Recommendation?- perhaps, defect-not in my mind (assuming not problem observed).

I take a different stance on exposed light bulbs in a closet. They were permitted at one time, but they can cause a fire. We cannot predict whether someone will place items too close to the bulb. Therefore, I call it a defect.

Everyone needs to use there own judgment, but if you use codes as a guide, every old house does not have to comply with every new code.

Don Hester
07-31-2014, 10:37 AM
Bob,

Just because it not been an issue for you does not make it correct or it will not be an issue in the future. 20 amp breaker on 14 ga wire is a safety issue. So is plywood in the garage if there is a fire. Now whether or not someone corrects them is up to them (or you). But the information is there.

Also, if there is a minimum standard that must should be met, giving that information to me is very helpful to my clients.

Example, if guard balusters are greater than 4 inches do you state that the are too far apart or do you state the need to be 4" or less?

Or like in my case with the exhaust ducting the requirement is that it needs insulation in my area, I let my client know that is the minimum. Now how exactly they achieve that is up to the "Qualified Professional".

I always recommend that repairs be performed by a licensed and qualified trades person.

I feel sometimes we need to give some specifics, this helps my clients.

It is in my opinion and observation that if you do a detailed inspection and working for your client best interest the likelihood of getting "The Call" goes way down. If you end up in court no matter how right you are you have lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Bob,

Just because it not been an issue for you does not make it correct or it will not be an issue in the future. 20 amp breaker on 14 ga wire is a safety issue. So is plywood in the garage if there is a fire. Now whether or not someone corrects them is up to them (or you). But the information is there.

Also, if there is a minimum standard that must should be met, giving that information to me is very helpful to my clients.

Example, if guard balusters are greater than 4 inches do you state that the are too far apart or do you state the need to be 4" or less?

Or like in my case with the exhaust ducting the requirement is that it needs insulation in my area, I let my client know that is the minimum. Now how exactly they achieve that is up to the "Qualified Professional".

I always recommend that repairs be performed by a licensed and qualified trades person.

I feel sometimes we need to give some specifics, this helps my clients.

It is in my opinion and observation that if you do a detailed inspection and working for your client best interest the likelihood of getting "The Call" goes way down. If you end up in court no matter how right you are you have lost.

Ken Rowe
07-31-2014, 12:13 PM
I have lived in a house since 1999 that was constructed in 1980. It is still in the county jurisdiction. There are several issues such as, open closet light bulbs, elec panel in the closet, bath fans in attic, 14ga wire on 20amp breakers, non-code stairway and plywood in garage. I have lived here all that time without incident. Granted... there would be a larger safety margin if it had been built to a higher standard but I don't think condemning a home to 10s of thousands of dollars of so called "repairs",(like a stairway retrofit that would actually render my home in general, non-functional) as realistic when a home can be and is otherwise functional.

Not to sound inflammatory, but just because you've made the decision to live in a deficient home doesn't give you the right to to make that decision for your clients. During the inspection you are not "condemning" the home. Simply report the facts and let your client make the decisions. By not reporting issues, or burying them deep into the report, you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit. It's better that your clients know all of the problems before they purchase the home than three months after they move in.

You'd be surprised how many clients don't overreact to significant problems. Many times my clients will say that they know how to fix the issue, or they have friends or family members who can fix the problems. Some just choose to ignore your warnings. For example, I inspected a house for a friend and the house was plumbed with PB pipes. Action item in my report, told them it should be re-piped. Didn't faze them. They still bought the house and are living with the PB. They've been warned, and I'm off the hook for future problems. PB pipes were approved and code compliant at the time they were installed, but we all know it's problematic.

Scott Patterson
07-31-2014, 12:41 PM
Scott
So... if I'm correct in understanding what you just said:
If you were a judge in a court of law and a man was before you with evidence he was "J" walking. You would feel you had no choice but to convict him and sentence him to life in prison. After all "J" walking is illegal in most municipalities but not everywhere and he may have caused an accident where someone could have been hurt or killed.

You may call it a "soft report". I would like to think it is a report in the proper perspective.

I have lived in a house since 1999 that was constructed in 1980. It is still in the county jurisdiction. There are several issues such as, open closet light bulbs, elec panel in the closet, bath fans in attic, 14ga wire on 20amp breakers, non-code stairway and plywood in garage. I have lived here all that time without incident. Granted... there would be a larger safety margin if it had been built to a higher standard but I don't think condemning a home to 10s of thousands of dollars of so called "repairs",(like a stairway retrofit that would actually render my home in general, non-functional) as realistic when a home can be and is otherwise functional.

Well, first off "J"walking is a not punishable by life in prison.... :D

Honestly, I don't care what or how you report your inspection findings. I'm just trying to help others from going astray. The only prospective we should have as a professional home inspector is reporting our findings so our client is informed about the home they are intending to purchase. If the home has problems that the client has issues with or is uncomfortable with, then so be it. We have done what we were hired to do. The only loyalty we should have is to our client, not to the owner or anyone else involved in the transaction including the real estate agents.

We all should be using the most current codes that are adopted in our areas as a reference to cite from or as a guide. This does not mean you are doing a code inspection.... Codes evolve and change as folks learn more about items, products, safety hazards and many other items related to homes and buildings. Just because something OK in 2006 does not mean that in 2014 it is still considered to be OK. Look at safety railings and guard rails, they have bounced around several times over the past two decades. This is a good example of why you should use the most current code for a guideline. If a home has a 5" space between guards then report that for increased safety they should not be more than 4" because a child could be come entrapped between them. See, I did not say anything about codes but I still covered the requirement..

Codes are minimal requirements and they do not cover everything in a home, I also tend to inspect above the minimal standard as I hope most others are doing; this is called "The Standard of Care". In a court of law the standard of care holds a tremendous amount of weight, I would say more than most SoP's.

Report as you wish maybe our paths will cross some day as I do EW work in many states including Missouri. I'll buy the coffee.. :D

Mark Reinmiller
07-31-2014, 02:14 PM
Scott, I respect you and your opinions, but I think we can go too far. As an example of using current codes as a guide, we could report as a defect any older house that does not have AFCI or hard wired smoke detectors or fire sprinkler systems. That is where judgment comes in. How often do you see problems with bathroom exhaust fans that have been vented into an attic? Is it going to kill someone? Is the roof sheathing going to rot away in a short time if this condition has existed for years with not signs of a problem?

If we don't use codes or accepted standards, then we are telling clients things need to be repaired based on our opinion (some inspectors opinions are better than others). But judgment is important (and often lacking).

John Williams
07-31-2014, 03:01 PM
I am a Code Enforcement Officer in the Town where I live and have recently been questioned about items appearing on home inspection reports. Some of these homes were built in the 1800's and the reports are stating things like, "stair rise and run doesn't comply with code, baluster spacing exceeds 4", there outlets are not grounding type, and so on."

Any changes made to the home should have been in accordance with the code at the time the work was performed but as we all know there is a lot of work where no permits were pulled so no inspections were done.

If a home was built before a jurisdiction adopted any codes is it compliant? Compliant at the time of construction is the key. One of the people asking the questions was getting prices to replace the stairway because it was a code violation, but not in 1865 when the home was built, based on the inspection report.

I am frequently asked to do a records search for a C of O and for many homes they simply don't exist but lenders can't quite grasp this.

Dirk Jeanis
07-31-2014, 03:03 PM
Bob,

You're clouding your own water by trying to categorize various problems. The job is simpler than that if you remember a few things. Of them, the most important are 1) you are hired to criticize the house and its systems. 2) in doing your job correctly, people will get pissed off.

1) Describe the problem.

2) Say why it's a problem.

3) Tell them to get it fixed by a qualified contractor.

CASE CLOSED!

Forget all these descriptive terms that are designed to devalue otherwise good information.

John,
Pretty well stated. I have been in quality assurance and inspection as well as in construction for most of my life. If everyone was happy all the time that meant that everyone was doing 8 sigma work or I wasnt doing mine.

I do want to state that regardless of where one lives, if exhaust is into the attic then there will eventually be MOLD. There can be many other problems such as increased ability for insect infestation (read termites and ants etc) as well as other wood destroying organisms because of this. I dont know of a time that venting could be to the attic, ever (there were times when laundry and bathrooms did not require venting at all but to outside of structure was included when required). If it never met code or can create damage or untenable conditions then it MUST be reported as a deficiency. It is up to the Buyer and seller how to deal with the issue.

If I personally find any exposed wires I will right it as a deficiency. Exposed wires are UNSAFE, it matters not whether a hot, ground or neutral. I have been it by neutral wires many times and by ground wires on more than one occasion. The way I think of it is what if MY kid touched the wire?

The ONLY gray areas are about things that WERE code and are now NOT to code and it affects egress or other safety issues (not quality of life issues like too few electrical recepticals). These would fall under notations with cautions about the REASONS it is not a good thing. If I knew the code was correct at build I might probably say so, but I would stil point out the difference.

Safety, degradation of property and structure, things that could never have met code, are always deficiencies….remember we are giving professional opinion. Err to the safe side. If anyone has a different opinion then they can have it. We are paid to err on safety and security and good construction and practices, finding work that was un-workmanlike.

I have inspected houses with high hyudraulic pressure through the slab foundations. THis was evidenced by vinyl tile releasing from the slabs, and upon moving furniture slighty finding moisture in carpets. The house was built to code for sure in 1955. That does not mean that the property is safe and tenable. In fact I wrote up that the property should be looked at by an engineering firm regarding hydraulic water presure infiltration, and should be inspected for mold. I delivered the report to the seller and the buyer as agreed. The buyer walked and the seller then had disclosable issues.

BTW, I prefer to have the sellers delivered a copy of any report made by any professional as well as the buyer. This many times mandates repairs and disclosures and stops all buyers from harm later. It sur wont help the seller at sale but creates honesty in the transaction.

Bruce Ramsey
07-31-2014, 03:19 PM
If we don't tell clients that things are deficent based on current standards, they cannot make an informed decision. There is no requirement that the buyer must fix anything in the inspection report. There is no requirement that the seller fix anything in the inspection report. That is totally up to negoiation between the two parties as to what, if anything is fixed and by whom.

Clients don't have to fix any issue, but they can't decide to ignore of fix the issue if they don't know about it.

Much of the code is safety related. Those items that can be identified by a primarily visual inspection as potential safety concerns based on current standards (codes) should be documented in the report. Then the client has the option to choose to ignore or fix. Lack of reporting does no one any good and can lead to harm for multiple parties.

Should HIs being holding older homes to the current standards? Is it fair? Clients should be informed that standards have changed and they may want to modify the house to move towards meeting the current standards for safety.

Raymond Wand
07-31-2014, 03:33 PM
In reply to John Williams:

Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious to any inspector. Most clients are not going to rip out an antique solid wood stair case because the pickets, rise/run do not meet current codes. Or any other non conforming current code issues.

I think once again some inspectors are so frightened by reading stories such as we see on this site they cover their risks six ways to Sunday.

Mark Reinmiller
07-31-2014, 06:29 PM
I am a Code Enforcement Officer in the Town where I live and have recently been questioned about items appearing on home inspection reports. Some of these homes were built in the 1800's and the reports are stating things like, "stair rise and run doesn't comply with code, baluster spacing exceeds 4", there outlets are not grounding type, and so on."

Any changes made to the home should have been in accordance with the code at the time the work was performed but as we all know there is a lot of work where no permits were pulled so no inspections were done.

If a home was built before a jurisdiction adopted any codes is it compliant? Compliant at the time of construction is the key. One of the people asking the questions was getting prices to replace the stairway because it was a code violation, but not in 1865 when the home was built, based on the inspection report.

I am frequently asked to do a records search for a C of O and for many homes they simply don't exist but lenders can't quite grasp this.

Typical lazy CYA reporting, probably using canned software.

Its ok to let someone know the the stairway does not meet typical rise/run requirements, but then the HI should explain that in many cases the possibility or cost of making it compliant is not practical. And, that this is not uncommon in dwellings of this age.

Mark Reinmiller
07-31-2014, 06:37 PM
If we don't tell clients that things are deficent based on current standards, they cannot make an informed decision. There is no requirement that the buyer must fix anything in the inspection report. There is no requirement that the seller fix anything in the inspection report. That is totally up to negoiation between the two parties as to what, if anything is fixed and by whom.

Clients don't have to fix any issue, but they can't decide to ignore of fix the issue if they don't know about it.

Much of the code is safety related. Those items that can be identified by a primarily visual inspection as potential safety concerns based on current standards (codes) should be documented in the report. Then the client has the option to choose to ignore or fix. Lack of reporting does no one any good and can lead to harm for multiple parties.

Should HIs being holding older homes to the current standards? Is it fair? Clients should be informed that standards have changed and they may want to modify the house to move towards meeting the current standards for safety.

I agree with much of what you say, but clients should be made aware that you are judging existing conditions by today's standards. Many clients assume that if you use this as a standard then it is required. If you leave the client with the idea that everything that does not meet today's standards is a defect then you are giving them unrealistic expectations and may kill a deal on a house they wanted and did not need to back away from.

John Williams
07-31-2014, 06:49 PM
Similar problems arise when a lender views items as deficiencies if they do not comply with current codes. Also true when a HO switches insurance carriers and their inspectors use current codes, it seems the some carrier are requiring upgrades for non compliant items.

Rolland Pruner
08-01-2014, 09:07 AM
In your report you should have reference to what is serviceable (what it means), what is is not etc.

!. if you see a defect in your opinion state what your findings are!

2. Advise in report and you recommend. (what you found should be evaluated by an applicable contractor and to repair as needed.

3. DO NOT list code info or numbers.

4. Do not advise on costs of repairs

Hope this helps..

- - - Updated - - -

In your report you should have reference to what is serviceable (what it means), what is is not etc.

!. if you see a defect in your opinion state what your findings are!

2. Advise in report and you recommend. (what you found should be evaluated by an applicable contractor and to repair as needed.

3. DO NOT list code info or numbers.

4. Do not advise on costs of repairs

Hope this helps..

Bruce Ramsey
08-01-2014, 03:52 PM
I agree with much of what you say, but clients should be made aware that you are judging existing conditions by today's standards. Many clients assume that if you use this as a standard then it is required. If you leave the client with the idea that everything that does not meet today's standards is a defect then you are giving them unrealistic expectations and may kill a deal on a house they wanted and did not need to back away from.

I agree. I explain this to my clients who attend. My reports often contain comments like:

Safety Issue: Sections of the guard railing are less than 36" above the walking surface. Lower railings were common in the past but are no longer considered safe.  Issue noted with front porch guard railings.

John Williams
08-01-2014, 04:16 PM
I agree. I explain this to my clients who attend. My reports often contain comments like:

Safety Issue: Sections of the guard railing are less than 36" above the walking surface. Lower railings were common in the past but are no longer considered safe.  Issue noted with front porch guard railings.



This is the proper way to go about it and eliminates any misunderstanding.

Jerry Peck
08-01-2014, 07:17 PM
Safety Issue: Sections of the guard railing are less than 36" above the walking surface. Lower railings were common in the past but are no longer considered safe.  Issue noted with front porch guard railings.


One major component is missing: Recommend correcting the too low railing by a licensed contractor.

Will the seller correct it? Probably not.

Will the client correct it? Probably not.

When someone is injured from falling over it and the deceased's spouse's attorney asks you: "Please explain why you thought it was a significant enough issue to call that out as "Safety Issue" yet did not feel it was significant enough to recommend a repair?"

The attorney continues: "Your Honor, please have the witness answer the question."

That is when The Judge turns to you and says: "Please answer the question." (the "please" is the judge's way of *telling you* to answer the question ... the "please" is not asking you, it is telling you).

SO ... "Please explain to the court why you did not recommend correction."

Garry Sorrells
08-02-2014, 07:46 AM
One major component is missing: Recommend correcting the too low railing by a licensed contractor................................

When someone is injured from falling over it and the deceased's spouse's attorney asks you: "Please explain why you thought it was a significant enough issue to call that out as "Safety Issue" yet did not feel it was significant enough to recommend a repair?"
.............................

"Please explain to the court why you did not recommend correction."



The issue of safety was pointed out in the report and the owner was put on notice of the potential safety issue of the existing railing. It was the owners decision not to take any remedial action. The owner accepted the responsibility and liability that the railing presented.

If I were to tell you that it is not safe to cross the street other than at the approved crossing which are clearly marked. A a result of crossing the street other than the prescribed locations and following the crossing signs, you get hit as a result of not using the legal cross walks, the decision was yours and you knew of the possible safety consequences that you chose not to address. :hand:

Jerry Peck
08-02-2014, 08:12 AM
The issue of safety was pointed out in the report and the owner was put on notice of the potential safety issue of the existing railing. It was the owners decision not to take any remedial action. The owner accepted the responsibility and liability that the railing presented.

If I were to tell you that it is not safe to cross the street other than at the approved crossing which are clearly marked. A a result of crossing the street other than the prescribed locations and following the crossing signs, you get hit as a result of not using the legal cross walks, the decision was yours and you knew of the possible safety consequences that you chose not to address. :hand:

Garry,

If there was a particularly unsafe reason not to cross that street, yes, you should point it out.

No different than EVERY railing is a safety hazard, but what is being discussed in one particular railing which was pointed out to be particularly unsafe because for some reason - in this case because it was too low.

You betcha you should recommend not crossing that particularly dangerous stree ... er ... that particularly unsafe railing - if it is unsafe enough to specifically point it out, and why it is that unsafe ... yeah, you need to recommend having it corrected.

Garry Sorrells
08-02-2014, 10:54 AM
I agree. I explain this to my clients who attend. My reports often contain comments like:

Safety Issue: Sections of the guard railing are less than 36" above the walking surface. Lower railings were common in the past but are no longer considered safe.  Issue noted with front porch guard railings.



Garry,

If there was a particularly unsafe reason not to cross that street, yes, you should point it out.

No different than EVERY railing is a safety hazard, but what is being discussed in one particular railing which was pointed out to be particularly unsafe because for some reason - in this case because it was too low.

You betcha you should recommend not crossing that particularly dangerous stree ... er ... that particularly unsafe railing - if it is unsafe enough to specifically point it out, and why it is that unsafe ... yeah, you need to recommend having it corrected.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

The grand Poooobas of code have set a specific height provides safety, or at least some measure of safety. There is a difference between "safety issue" as apposed to a "life threatening hazard" We do not know if the railing was 24" or 35 1/2" or Pre 2007 nor if the elevation is 30 1/2" or 30 feet. Safety or hazard and the line of distinction is not there. 42" is the safe height today . 48" may be the new safe height tomorrow.

Jerry,
Your court question ".....significant enough issue to call that out as "Safety Issue" yet did not feel it was significant enough to recommend a repair?" ..."

Saying something is " deemed currently unsafe" in a report is the equivalent to recommending a correction, which is different from "deemed unsafe but you shouldn't do anything about it". Stating "unsafe" with "recommend correction" is like a belt with suspenders statement.

Not saying that noting a safety concern is wrong, only that by stating that a correction be made is redundant. If I tell you that your brakes are unsafe, do I also need to tell you that they need to be replaced/"corrected"? Or do you get into how unsafe are they? Granted there is logic involved and people can be stupid or plain dense.

Should there be a need to put a sign on a lawn mower to not put your hand under the deck when it is running? Where is Darwin when you need him???:confused:

Jerry Peck
08-02-2014, 12:52 PM
Should there be a need to put a sign on a lawn mower to not put your hand under the deck when it is running? Where is Darwin when you need him???:confused:

Now I understand why you don't get it and don't understand ...

"Should there be a need to put a sign on a lawn mower to not put your hand under the deck when it is running?"

There already is - too many people have lost fingers/hands/toes/feet for doing just that.

BECAUSE HE (the inspector) SPECIFICALLY pointed out and called that railing out as a "Safety Issue" ... I don't know if you missed that part or are just ignoring that part, but that part is the key part - HE - recognized THAT RAILING as a SAFETY ISSUE ... - HE - did not say to do anything about it. Thus, either the "Safety Issue" really was not worth mentioning so specifically, or the "Safety Issue" needed to have a recommendation to correct it.

Either it IS ... or it IS NOT ... a "Safety Issue". If it IS, then treat it as such. If it IS NOT, then why imply that it is.

Kind of like the guy down here in Daytona Beach last week (no, he was not from Daytona Beach, he was from the midwest someplace as I recall, but we still have our share of "stupid people" here): This person of such outstanding intelligence that, when his loaded 9 mm handgun fell out of his bag in a hotel room, he looked at it and (according to what he told the police) 'he could not tell if the safety was on or not, so ... "stupid person" ... SQUEEZED THE TRIGGER to SEE IF THE SAFETY WAS ON ... that's right ... and he shot through the wall into the adjoining hotel room hitting a child sitting on the bed watching TV.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not bad mouthing "Stupid People", but those idiots should, in the case above, point the gun to their OWN HEAD and squeeze the trigger ... if the safety was on, oh, well, they survive another day ... and if the safety was off, oh well, one less stupid idiot person to worry about.

John Dirks Jr
08-02-2014, 01:46 PM
If something doesn't need fixing, why report on it?

It should always be like such;

Yada yada, blah blah blah. Have a qualified contractor fix it.

........or some variation of that.

Rick Cantrell
08-02-2014, 03:22 PM
One major component is missing: Recommend correcting the too low railing by a licensed contractor.

Will the seller correct it? Probably not.

Will the client correct it? Probably not.

When someone is injured from falling over it and the deceased's spouse's attorney asks you: "Please explain why you thought it was a significant enough issue to call that out as "Safety Issue" yet did not feel it was significant enough to recommend a repair?"

The attorney continues: "Your Honor, please have the witness answer the question."

That is when The Judge turns to you and says: "Please answer the question." (the "please" is the judge's way of *telling you* to answer the question ... the "please" is not asking you, it is telling you).

SO ... "Please explain to the court why you did not recommend correction."


Your Honor,

There are sometimes items included in a report, not because they are a defect needing repair, but because these items provide information the purchaser may use to determine suitability for their own needs.

2 wire convenience outlets
3 wire stove / dryer outlets
Old style Shower faucets (not anti scald)
Old tub and faucet where the faucet is below the flood rim.
Old hose bibs (not anti siphon)
5 gallon per flush toilets
Galvanized water pipe
"The Egress" door that is less than 36"
Framed roof without a ridge board.
Undersized floor/ ceiling/.... framing.
Stairs and railings
!0 SEER AC units
80% furnaces
Lack of insulation in walls....
Lead paint, lead plumbing,
Asbestos.......

All of these, and hundreds more, were acceptable when built.
So you see your Honor, there is no defect to report, this is just the way houses were built at that time.

Jerry Peck
08-02-2014, 04:10 PM
Your Honor,

There are sometimes items included in a report, not because they are a defect needing repair, but because these items provide information the purchaser may use to determine suitability for their own needs.

2 wire convenience outlets
3 wire stove / dryer outlets
Old style Shower faucets (not anti scald)
Old tub and faucet where the faucet is below the flood rim.
Old hose bibs (not anti siphon)
5 gallon per flush toilets
Galvanized water pipe
"The Egress" door that is less than 36"
Framed roof without a ridge board.
Undersized floor/ ceiling/.... framing.
Stairs and railings
!0 SEER AC units
80% furnaces
Lack of insulation in walls....
Lead paint, lead plumbing,
Asbestos.......

All of these, and hundreds more, were acceptable when built.
So you see your Honor, there is no defect to report, this is just the way houses were built at that time.

Will both attorneys please approach the bench.

(Turning to the Defense Attorney) How many of those items has your witness marked as "Safety Issues"?

(Defense Attorney responds) None, Your Honor.

(Turning to the Plaintiff Attorney) You may proceed with your line of questioning.

(Plaintiff Attorney responds) Thank you, Your Honor.

(Defense Attorney turning toward The Judge) Your Honor, could we have a 10 minute recess for negotiations?

(Judge) In my chambers Now. Both of you.

(Judge retires to his office where he meets both attorneys) Defense Attorney, this is your last chance to work something out with the Plaintiff Attorney ... time starts now.

(Defense Attorney to Plaintiff Attorney) Will $50,000 be sufficient to settle this and close the case against of my clients, the insurance company and the home inspector?

Defense Attorney Rick, you are forgetting that he specifically and intentionally made a special case of that railing by specifically labeling it a "Safety Issue", which is completely different than your ordinary items you referred to. I keep pointing that difference out, it is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

If your client is going to go to the trouble to label that a "Safety Issue" then he needs to tell his client that it should be corrected in some manner.

Rick Cantrell
08-02-2014, 04:30 PM
Rick, you are forgetting that he specifically and intentionally made a special case of that railing by specifically labeling it a "Safety Issue", which is completely different than your ordinary items you referred to. I keep pointing that difference out, it is a BIG DIFFERENCE.


I intentionally included a wide range of items. Some are related to safety, others are not.

But the fact remains, old houses were built using different standards. For an inspector to report on differences in construction compared to today's codes (much less recommend a repair) is unrealistic, at best. As I said "There are sometimes items included in a report, not because they are a defect needing repair, but because these items provide information the purchaser may use to determine suitability for their own needs. "

Rick Cantrell
08-02-2014, 04:51 PM
If I may, lets use a car as an example.

When you got your new Jaquar (new to you), you took it to the dealer and put it on the rack to inspect it. " (I had the dealer put it up on their rack so I could inspect the undercarriage for rust - none!) "
Did the dealer recommend you to install.... air bags? Anti lock brakes? Theft prevention? All of these are available (some are required) on a new car.
How about any of your others?
"I've had:

1954 MK VII

1954 XK 140

1959 MK (later to be known as the MK I)

1960 MK II (which is why the MK became the MK I)

1967 E Type (commonly known as the XKE)

1972 XK 6 "

I think not.
Much the same as buying any house built before the now current code.
An inspector may not need to recommend a "correction" for items included in a report, when those items were not defective and were included so the buyer may determine the suitability or usefulness for his needs.

Garry Sorrells
08-02-2014, 05:45 PM
Now I understand why you don't get it and don't understand ...

..........

I realize that it is an esoteric argument that pointing out a safety issue and also recommending that it be corrected is implied should the person be so inclined. Sorry that you didn't get it but I think Rick has the gist of my point.

Jerry Peck
08-02-2014, 06:23 PM
If I may, lets use a car as an example.

When you got your new Jaquar (new to you), you took it to the dealer and put it on the rack to inspect it. " (I had the dealer put it up on their rack so I could inspect the undercarriage for rust - none!) "
Did the dealer recommend you to install.... air bags? Anti lock brakes? Theft prevention? All of these are available (some are required) on a new car.
How about any of your others?
"I've had:

1954 MK VII

1954 XK 140

1959 MK (later to be known as the MK I)

1960 MK II (which is why the MK became the MK I)

1967 E Type (commonly known as the XKE)

1972 XK 6 "

I think not.
Much the same as buying any house built before the now current code.
An inspector may not need to recommend a "correction" for items included in a report, when those items were not defective and were included so the buyer may determine the suitability or usefulness for his needs.



If my mechanic saw that the ball joints were ready to drop out and simply wrote "Safety Issue - ball joints are bad", then, yes, when the ball joints dropped out he (his insurance company) would be repairing or replacing that car.

On the other hand, if he wrote "Safety Issue - ball joints are bad, replace now" and I drove off without having him replace the ball joints ... shame on me ... and it would all come out of my pocket.

I wonder how few here don't see that difference, versus how many here do see that difference - there are two here who do not see that difference. Anyone care to show their hand which way ...

Rick Cantrell
08-02-2014, 06:32 PM
If my mechanic saw that the ball joints were ready to drop out and simply wrote "Safety Issue - ball joints are bad", then, yes, when the ball joints dropped out he (his insurance company) would be repairing or replacing that car.


To borrow one of you favorite phrases, "what part of" was not defective "do you not understand"?


An inspector may not need to recommend a "correction" for items included in a report, when those items were not defective and were included so the buyer may determine the suitability or usefulness for his needs.

Garry Sorrells
08-02-2014, 07:06 PM
Now I understand why you don't get it and don't understand ...

..........
Judge Jerry,

I realize that it is an esoteric argument that pointing out a safety issue and also recommending that it be corrected is implied should the person be so inclined. Sorry that you didn't get it but I think Rick has the gist of my point.

Jerry Peck
08-02-2014, 07:21 PM
To borrow one of you favorite phrases, "what part of" was not defective "do you not understand"?


An inspector may not need to recommend a "correction" for items included in a report, when those items were not defective and were included so the buyer may determine the suitability or usefulness for his needs.

What part of "Safety Issue" do you not understand?

He specifically addressed it in the report as a "Safety Issue", identifying it as a "Safety Issue" trumps all lesser calls.

If there was no need to recommend anything be done, then there was no need to specifically point it out as a "Safety Issue" - that is the part you appear to be missing.

Mark Reinmiller
08-02-2014, 07:53 PM
Jerry, I respect your knowledge, but I have issues with your approach. Because if we follow your logic, then we should recommend that every house not up to the latest code be upgraded to the latest code.

I realize you may say what it wrong with that approach? What is wrong is that it is unrealistic and may cause buyers to walk away from houses until they finally realize that houses must meet code when they were built and not meet every new code. I see nothing wrong with pointing out issues that do not meet today's codes and letting the buyer decide if that is something they want to live with or not.

In my reports I handle this different than many HIs. Some newer code requirements that I think are a significant improvement to safety I recommend as an improvement, but do not consider the condition a defect. It makes the point but does not prompt the buyer to ask for unreasonable repairs. Some items I do not discuss from a safety standpoint (e.g. 240 dryer circuits with three-prong plugs versus four-I do not which type is present so they are aware of what they need if they are buying a dryer).

Jerry Peck
08-03-2014, 06:38 AM
I have issues with your approach. Because if we follow your logic, then we should recommend that every house not up to ...

Mark,

If " ... we follow your logic ... " you would have made a much shorter post and said to the effect of "The answer is to not specifically call it out as a 'Safety Issue - railing too short'."

The entire "issue" is created by specifically singling out an item as a 'Safety Issue - Railing too short' then not recommending it be corrected.

What would you write up if the railing was missing?

Garry Sorrells
08-03-2014, 08:39 AM
What part of "Safety Issue" do you not understand?

He specifically addressed it in the report as a "Safety Issue", identifying it as a "Safety Issue" trumps all lesser calls.

If there was no need to recommend anything be done, then there was no need to specifically point it out as a "Safety Issue" - that is the part you appear to be missing.


Your logic is wrong in your argument.
Stating a potential Safety Issue exists puts others on noticed of the condition.
By not stating that it be corrected does not negate the Safety Issue.
By not recommending correction does not suggest that the Safety Issue not be corrected.
Recommending that it be corrected only reinforces the Safety Issue.


Your inflexible position seems to be:
Site a Safety Issue in a report, then you must recommend that it be corrected.

Anything that does not meet present code is a Safety Issue.

All safety Issues must have a recommendation for correction.

There is no delineation to what level of concern for Safety Issue.

People do not have the ability to equate a Safety Issue and the need for correction.



Therefore lets extrapolate.
Anything that does not meet the present code is considered a Safety Issue and must be a recommended correction in the report.

Present Code is the determination of acceptable safety. Previous Code has no validity.

All structures must be brought to present code requirements as to not present a Safety Issue.

As Code requirement change all structures should be brought up to that new Code specifications anything else creates a Safety Issue that must be sited in the report and a recommendation for correction be stated.

Now;
I would have to agree that courts have seen fit to deem that the public in general are a very stupid lot. That there is no understanding of cause and effect. This is demonstrated by Hot Coffee being to hot and the need to change it to Warm Coffee. Spinning blades on lawn mowers are dangerous and you need a sign to inform you of that fact. The thinking seems to be that society functions at the level of a 2 or 3 year old that must be told that the flame is hot and will burn you. Then must be told not to touch the flame. Such is the condition of a society that relies on government intervention so that they do not have to think for themselves. And therefore have no responsibility for their actions.

Sorry for editorializing. :(


Back to the original point...
Noting a Safety Issue without recommending that it be corrected does not negate the Safety Issue.

Not all recommendations for correction are Safety Issues.

Not all Safety Issues, as determined by present Code, must be corrected.

If I were to state that "the steps to the deck are rotted out and will not support any weight." Do I also need to also state not to use them? Which would be the same thing as stating that "you should not use the steps to the deck because the are rotted out and will not support any weight." The latter is why not to use the steps and the former relies on the understanding of correct actions based on information, or common sense.

If I tell you there is ice on the roof. Do I also need to tell you it is dangerous and that you may fall? This is where Darwin comes in to focus. Darn I did it again. Sorry.


A thought.
If you went to a house that had a railing which met code min and meeting the clients with their children who all were 6'8'' to 7'4" would you point out that the existing railing poses a safety risk for the family?

Jerry Peck
08-03-2014, 09:20 AM
Garry,

I will ask you the same question I asked Mark:
- What would you write if the railing was missing?

Rick Cantrell
08-03-2014, 09:35 AM
Garry,

I will ask you the same question I asked Mark:
- What would you write if the railing was missing?

A railing is missing, that is a defect.
Because it is a defect.
It should be reported and corrective action recommended.

Bruce's example was not a defect, it was because of code changes.
Since it was not a defect I think it appropriate to include it in the report with no need to recommend corrective action be taken.

Jerry Peck
08-03-2014, 10:48 AM
Safety Issue: Sections of the guard railing are less than 36" above the walking surface. Lower railings were common in the past but are no longer considered safe.  Issue noted with front porch guard railings.



A railing is missing, that is a defect.
Because it is a defect.
It should be reported and corrective action recommended.

Bruce's example was not a defect, it was because of code changes.
Since it was not a defect I think it appropriate to include it in the report with no need to recommend corrective action be taken.

Bruce's example may not have been from a code change - railings have been required to be 36" minimum for eons now. Just because "lower railings were common in the past" does not mean they were ever considered safe, but code for those who are old have always had a minimum height of 36". It is a defect.
Rick, you are correct on this part:
- Because it is a defect, it should be reported and corrective action recommended.

Your implication is that, because so many cars and trucks drive 80 mph on the interstate and that is common, that it is also allowed and considered to be safe, thus, based on your thinking, 80 mph is no longer considered safe ... right, it is not considered safe, but it never was either.

It all gets back to the fact that if the inspector feels it should be specifically pointed out - the inspector should recommend correction.

Also, so it does not go uncorrected and is therefore thought to be correct - in a previous post it was stated that 36" used to be considered safe and now it is 42" ... and that is an incorrect statement with regards to this discussion:
- From the 2012 IRC (and going back as far as you want) - (bold is mine)
- - R312.1 Guards. - - - Guards shall be provided in accordance with Sections R312.1.1 through R312.1.4.
- - - R312.1.2 Height. - - - - Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

Decades ago, many decades ago, the height for other than dwelling units was changed from 36" minimum to 42" minimum, but this discussion is about dwelling units and that has been 36" for eons.

Did not want to leave anyone thinking that 42" is the minimum height for railings in dwelling units ... it is still 36" minimum.

Obviously, like with Kevin Wood on the other thread, I am :deadhorse: here too.

Bruce Ramsey
08-03-2014, 04:17 PM
Jerry,

Your point is that if a defect is listed in the report, it should have also have a call to action. Something as simple as: Repair by a qualified contractor. We hear you.

Others believe that stating an item is defective to whatever degree using the various subjective terms including but not limited to the term Safety Issue implies the client should make repairs and does not require the use of specific call to action statement.

I believe you have stated your case strongly and clearly. You are unwilling to waiver on your position and continue to make attempts to force others to cave in on their position and agree with you. As is your modis operandi.

This is the point in time that people tend to stop listening and tune out. This is time in the discussion you may consider waiting a day or two before responding again. Accept that there are two positions and regardless of how strongly you believe in your position, not every one is going to agree with you.

Jerry Peck
08-03-2014, 06:14 PM
This is the point in time that people tend to stop listening and tune out. This is time in the discussion you may consider waiting a day or two before responding again.

Bruce,

I hear you and understand, that is why I had already signed off on commenting on this thread, see the last line in my previous post.

Mark Reinmiller
08-03-2014, 06:20 PM
Mark,

If " ... we follow your logic ... " you would have made a much shorter post and said to the effect of "The answer is to not specifically call it out as a 'Safety Issue - railing too short'."

The entire "issue" is created by specifically singling out an item as a 'Safety Issue - Railing too short' then not recommending it be corrected.

What would you write up if the railing was missing?

If a railing is missing I would consider it a defect, because railing have been required for a long time. If a railing was 32 or 34 inches high instead of 36 I would let them know the existing railing is lower than present requirements. Whether that is a defect is up to them to decide.

Garry Sorrells
08-03-2014, 07:51 PM
Garry,

I will ask you the same question I asked Mark:
- What would you write if the railing was missing?


Dang-----:censored:--- somebody took your railing.:mad2: Must have been that guy that Jerry told the railing was a safety issue and it had to be corrected to meet code. So he took your railing, because Jerry said so.......:p

Ken Rowe
08-03-2014, 10:01 PM
Am I missing something? Why would a HI not inform his clients about deficiencies and safety issues with the house they're buying. Age of the home has nothing to do with it. What code was in effect at the time it was built has nothing to do with it.

HI don't and cannot require repair. We are there to report and document the condition of the home. By the time we're done with the inspection there should be no surprises for the client. Two pronged outlets? Let the clients know and suggest an upgrade. That way they're not surprised when they move in and can't plug in their flat screen t.v. Spacing of the balusters is too wide? Let the clients know and recommend repairs. That way your covered when their child accidentally hangs them self. Knob and tube wiring? Let them know and recommend repair. That way there's no surprise when their insurance company drops their coverage.

Jerry Peck
08-04-2014, 05:00 AM
Dang-----:censored:--- somebody took your railing.:mad2: Must have been that guy that Jerry told the railing was a safety issue and it had to be corrected to meet code. So he took your railing, because Jerry said so.......:p

That guy Jerry said " ... remove AND REPLACE with a proper railing ... ", not " ... remove the railing ... " :p :)

Garry Sorrells
08-04-2014, 05:24 AM
Bruce,

I hear you and understand, that is why I had already signed off on commenting on this thread, see the last line in my previous post.

Jerry,
Knew I could drag you back.............:boink:

Easier than getting a Politician to take your money. :becky:

Garry Sorrells
08-04-2014, 05:39 AM
That guy Jerry said " ... remove AND REPLACE with a proper railing ... ", not " ... remove the railing ... " :p :)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, but with no railing people would be more careful than they might be relying on a low railing........

If you know there is nothing or no one that will take responsibility for your actions then you will take responsibility and be responsible for your actions.. Or, Darwin makes a visit and you are removed from the gene pool.

Raymond Wand
08-04-2014, 05:48 AM
Back to the original questions asked by Bob R.

Here is what a judge had to say with regards to use of three terms commonly found in inspectors reports. This judgement was from a suit against Housemaster.


[14] Housemaster provided its opinion to the Plaintiffs by way of the Inspection Report. The condition of various elements in the house was rated as satisfactory, fair, poor, or not checked. The Report includes a section which describes the meaning ascribed to these ratings:–

SATISFACTORY- Functional at the time of inspection. Element condition is sufficient for its minimum required function. Element is in working or operating order with no readily visible evidence of a substantial defect.

FAIR- Functional at the time of inspection but with limitations and/or exceptions. Element exhibits an existing defect or has a high potential for a defect to develop, is near or beyond its normal design life, has a limited service life, and/or does not meet normal condition expectations.

POOR- Not functional at the time of inspection or exhibiting conditions conducive to imminent failure. Element shows considerable wear or has a substantial defect, is missing when it should be present, and/or is not in working or operation order.

[15] These ratings are extremely vague and broad, and the same element could conceivably be classified under different ratings. I agree with Steve Martyniuk of Inspections Unlimited when he states in his evidence that the ambiguity of the rating system makes it very misleading. The use of this system to evaluate the elements in the home undermined the ability of Housemaster to provide a reasonable opinion to the Plaintiffs regarding the condition of the home.

Vern Heiler
08-04-2014, 09:28 AM
To see this topic from a new angle, take the example of the instructions sent to my wife by a specialist at Duke University Hospital; "Take one tablet qid for three days....." If I had not been a linguist, fluent in the dead language of Latin:), I would not have known "qid" is a Latin abbreviation for quater in die or as we all know "four time a day". Just tell it like it is and what it is, stop already with the acronyms, tech talk, well kinda maybe and quit runnen my day:mad:.

Dirk Jeanis
08-04-2014, 03:11 PM
Back to the original questions asked by Bob R.

Here is what a judge had to say with regards to use of three terms commonly found in inspectors reports. This judgement was from a suit against Housemaster.


[14] Housemaster provided its opinion to the Plaintiffs by way of the Inspection Report. The condition of various elements in the house was rated as satisfactory, fair, poor, or not checked. The Report includes a section which describes the meaning ascribed to these ratings:–

FAIR- Functional at the time of inspection but with limitations and/or exceptions. Element exhibits an existing defect or has a high potential for a defect to develop, is near or beyond its normal design life, has a limited service life, and/or does not meet normal condition expectations.

POOR- Not functional at the time of inspection or exhibiting conditions conducive to imminent failure. Element shows considerable wear or has a substantial defect, is missing when it should be present, and/or is not in working or operation order.


Notice that FAIR and POOR share the fact that the item has potential to failure. This is a real problem for me, if an item has "potential to failure" it means that it is either past its design life expectancy or is no longer considered servicable. Either one of these is notice that something must be corrected. Poor would indicate that it must be corrected NOW, and fair as soon as can be scheduled.

I have a 1950's coal oil (read diesel oil) furnace that has been in operation every year for as many years as I have. I service it myself annually, replace the sprue nozzles and adjust the igniter etc., change the filter sets and assure proper mixture at burn. I have even had the tank cleaned and reset it at proper level etc. This takes about 30 minutes a year. If it was not serviced, and lubed annually it probably would fail completely. If any inspector looked at this furnace they would place it in the fair to poor category, however this furnace, unless a motor fails or the furnace plates burn out will last for many, many more years IF maintiained. The issue is that to an HI, this might be a "personal" red flag, whereas the system is fully operational and well maintained but VERY old.

Regardless, if I inspected my home, I would use "fair" for the furnace and many other items. Hell, the studs are at thier design life for stick construction in Florida where termites abound and regularly eat everything taey can. The question becomes where do we as HI say "stop, enough!"

Notice that my 1950's home is stick construction in termite territory. IT has many areas that show termite work and damage. As the house was 1X12 sheathed in subfloor, walls and roof, there are many areas that when opened show extensive termite work, usually in channels through the 1X12's, they ate the easy stuff and left the hard wood and heavy sap areas alone. In the 1950's that was a LOT of wood left alone. My studs have some damage, my joists and rafters have not been attacked aat all.

so, if you inspected my home and saw the termits droppings (that appear regularly from vibration and wind etc) you would know of damage. So do you write that there is evidence of active or inactive termite damage and state that the structure has been degraded? OR, do you just note that this is a stick home and subject to termite and wood destrying organisms? If you not that do you note that the trusses, sheathing, and interior walls and trim of a block built home are subject to wood destroying organisms in Florida? I can tell you that a stick home in Florida should not and many times does not have the value of a block home. Does that mean that HI doenst have to state more than "this is a stick home over 50 ears old and may have wood destrroying organism damage"?

Really guys, there is is some point that one must look at the big picture. A railing built in 1980 that was between 34 and 38 inches met code then. It is considered safe, period. The new code is "safer" due to long term studies. BTW, the spacing between the balusters would not be to code today if built in say 1980. Do you wish to write this up as well? It met code at the time of build.it is safer to have the currrent code, that does not mean that it is unsafe unless exacting and certain conditions are met (a rug rat crawling along and placing its head between balusters). And is an HI responsible to assure that the client knows and understands the difference between older codes and the "safer" newer codes?? Are you going to inspect a circuit main and tell the client that every circuit in order to be "safer" should meet the newer electrical codes and have GFCI at each breaker?

I would consider things that are directy UNSAFE under any circumstance. I would note things that were site built wihtout or with minimum code. As far as being "safer" and safer and safer…..lets be clear…it is NOT our responsibility. IF it is WRONG, if it is unsafe, if it is broken, it is in disrepair, if it violates codes directly, then write it up. Note the age of the house and that there are many differences between as built codes of that time and now. LET IT GO. It is NOT our responsibility as HI to stop survival of the fittest. That is a government job much above my pay scale.

Bruce Ramsey
08-04-2014, 04:45 PM
[QUOTE=Dirk Jeanis;246450]Are you going to inspect a circuit main and tell the client that every circuit in order to be "safer" should meet the newer electrical codes and have GFCI at each breaker?
QUOTE]

You probably meant AFCI at all breakers, not GFCI...

GFCI are not required at every breaker currently, only at those designated locations including bathrooms, kitchen countertops, garages, basements, exteriors and within 6 feet of a laundry sink.

AFCI are not required at every breaker, only branch circuits without GFCI protection.

And yes I do recommend to my clients to upgrade to GFCI protection at the current specified locations. I do not recommend AFCI upgrades to homes built prior 2006.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Dirk Jeanis;246450]Are you going to inspect a circuit main and tell the client that every circuit in order to be "safer" should meet the newer electrical codes and have GFCI at each breaker?
QUOTE]

You probably meant AFCI at all breakers, not GFCI...

GFCI are not required at every breaker currently, only at those designated locations including bathrooms, kitchen countertops, garages, basements, exteriors and within 6 feet of a laundry sink.

AFCI are not required at every breaker, only branch circuits without GFCI protection.

And yes I do recommend to my clients to upgrade to GFCI protection at the current specified locations. I do not recommend AFCI upgrades to homes built prior 2006.

Jerry Peck
08-04-2014, 05:01 PM
Notice that FAIR and POOR share the fact that the item has potential to failure.

That is not what is stated, however, if re-wording is permitted, or even if re-wording is not permitted, SATISFACTORY also shares the 'has potential to failure' aspect because *everything*, no matter how new or well built, has potential to failure.

That is why so many people make a good living repairing brand new luxury cars. :)

Dirk Jeanis
08-04-2014, 05:34 PM
That is not what is stated, however, if re-wording is permitted, or even if re-wording is not permitted, SATISFACTORY also shares the 'has potential to failure' aspect because *everything*, no matter how new or well built, has potential to failure.

That is why so many people make a good living repairing brand new luxury cars. :)

"Latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future failure would mean that an HI would have to give OPINION about the qualities of a product and system that are NOT part of the HI process. In good working order, not maintained, and faiure or not working are much different things.

If HI was to consider all systems and products installed and thier failure rates then an HI inspection would cost thousands, not hundreds and the HI would have to study nights constantly for failure rates and design issues of everything from AC units to pressurized water connections. This is NOT the business of any HI as far as I know.

If there is a KNOWN dangerous defect in some system or design and it is well known and publicly advertiised, then yes an HI may have some responsibility to know and understand the danger. If not there is no reason to concern one's self, especially code changes to make things "safer", if it was code and consdsiered safe in 1990 and there is a new 20XX code that is to make it SAFER not just safe.

There must be some line to draw, I think that is the line.

Jerry Peck
08-04-2014, 05:49 PM
If there is a KNOWN dangerous defect in some system or design and it is well known and publicly advertiised, then yes an HI may have some responsibility to know and understand the danger. If not there is no reason to concern one's self, especially code changes to make things "safer", if it was code and consdsiered safe in 1990 and there is a new 20XX code that is to make it SAFER not just safe.

Then there was also no reason to specifically state "Safety Issue - Railing too low" because, you are saying, that may have been a code change to "safer" as you put it.

Ken Rowe
08-04-2014, 10:15 PM
I would note things that were site built wihtout or with minimum code. As far as being "safer" and safer and safer…..lets be clear…it is NOT our responsibility. IF it is WRONG, if it is unsafe, if it is broken, it is in disrepair, if it violates codes directly, then write it up. Note the age of the house and that there are many differences between as built codes of that time and now. LET IT GO. It is NOT our responsibility as HI to stop survival of the fittest. That is a government job much above my pay scale.


So a house with a deck built in the 70's with a nailed on ledger board, no flashing, no footing, and a 7 inch space between the railing would be acceptable for you because it "met code" at the time? Sorry, not acceptable to me.

Garry Sorrells
08-05-2014, 06:09 AM
So a house with a deck built in the 70's with a nailed on ledger board, no flashing, no footing, and a 7 inch space between the railing would be acceptable for you because it "met code" at the time? Sorry, not acceptable to me.

Would have to agree on the "nailed on ledger" as an immediate correction item sense it poses an immediate potential hazard, even if the deck had a 2nd support beam near the ledger boar I would want the ledger bolted.

I would point out the current thought on the potential "Safety Issue" in the railing spacing.

Not seeing the rest I would not get my shorts wadded up.

I would offer recommendations as alterations to the deck which would add longevity, but at 40yrs and no mention of deterioration it is doing pretty good.

Dirk Jeanis
08-05-2014, 07:16 AM
So a house with a deck built in the 70's with a nailed on ledger board, no flashing, no footing, and a 7 inch space between the railing would be acceptable for you because it "met code" at the time? Sorry, not acceptable to me.

nailed on ledger is unsafe, period, must be written, never met engineering whether there was a code or not. Flashings may or may not be visible and may or may not be designed properly or the design hidden as to proper function. Water intrusion would be a must repair. The 7 inch is it met code it WAS safe as to intended use (parents used to teach common sense), under 4 inch is "safer" in accordance with new code but if someone can find a way they will harm themselves on it somehow. I would NEVER suggest a contractor repair it, as, if used as designed it IS safe. One might suggest that if youngsters are around it should have a web or net barrier inside the rails to assure child safety.

Ken, does that mean that you include a notification that tamper resistant receptacles should be installed to replace three prong grounded receptacles because they are available and may become code or are code for new construction in some given jurisdiction?

What I see being suggested is that if there is "yes" to that question, then any failure to notify that anything could be "safer" is the RESPONSIBILITY of the HI and that any time the HI fails to identify ANYTHING that could be made safer according to any code (whether or not adopted locally at the time of inspection) would fall under errors and omissions and be a liability to the HI.

I am not sure that s logical, nor is it prudent in any respect. It creates a very high bar and level of responsibility that may be impossible to meet even 80% of the time. In any system not meeting minimum 99.7% would mean that our process is out of control and failed in itself.

If something is non-functional, not maintainable, or UNSAFE is different than something being safe for use as intended and having met code at time of build yet not meeting current code (safer).

My concern here is the "court room drama" described in replies and the fact that as stated there is NO defense except to tell every client that they should upgrade every house to meet every current code. This would necessitate expenses that may exceed house values!

In order to meet your high standard, one would need a "boiler plate" statement regarding every safety code change from time of build to current date, deliver it with the inspection, and let the owner/buyer figure out whether something is important enough to change or end a deal.

That I would agree with, provided that such a computerized program could be designed properly. However, many jurisdictions are between 2 and even 10 years from issue to adoption of new codes, some exclude parts of new codes and include local requirements as well! Therefore one would have to know the date of adoption of codes and date of build and exceptions for every locality. This is extremely complex!

I give up.

Jerry Peck
08-05-2014, 09:21 AM
What I see being suggested is that if there is "yes" to that question, then any failure to notify that anything could be "safer" is the RESPONSIBILITY of the HI and that any time the HI fails to identify ANYTHING that could be made safer according to any code (whether or not adopted locally at the time of inspection) would fall under errors and omissions and be a liability to the HI.

The above is a complete misunderstanding of what has been said, and said in the simplest of terms.

What has been said, and said in the simplest of terms, and repeated here is this: WHEN the home inspector DECIDES to specifically identify something as a "Safety Issue", then the home inspector should also recommend something be done.

What has NOT been said here is that the home inspector should identify every instance of unsafe or code-made-safer items or conditions.


I am not sure that s logical, nor is it prudent in any respect. It creates a very high bar and level of responsibility that may be impossible to meet even 80% of the time. In any system not meeting minimum 99.7% would mean that our process is out of control and failed in itself.

That isn't logical nor is it prudent, that is why that has NOT been stated.


I give up.

Seems prudent for me to do the same as some here simply seem to not grasp what has been clearly stated and try to put their own spin on it so they can say their piece ... so be it.

This horse is dead, but some may continue to beat it. :deadhorse:

Ken Rowe
08-05-2014, 12:20 PM
In order to meet your high standard, one would need a "boiler plate" statement regarding every safety code change from time of build to current date, deliver it with the inspection, and let the owner/buyer figure out whether something is important enough to change or end a deal.

That I would agree with, provided that such a computerized program could be designed properly. However, many jurisdictions are between 2 and even 10 years from issue to adoption of new codes, some exclude parts of new codes and include local requirements as well! Therefore one would have to know the date of adoption of codes and date of build and exceptions for every locality. This is extremely complex!

I give up.


You forgot to mention CPSC findings (Stab Loc Breakers), changes in manufacturer's installation guidelines (CSST gas pipe) and class action lawsuits (PB piping). All met code when installed, but now considered safety hazards.

Good, established home inspectors know this job isn't easy. There's continuous research and education needed to not only keep up with codes, but everything else as well. I'd suggest you work on your "boilerplate" like many of us have done. And you're correct, as HIs we recommend upgrades or correction. If it's done or not is dependent on our clients. But, by making the recommendation we've done our jobs.

Mark Reinmiller
08-05-2014, 07:49 PM
Many of the responses deal with obvious safety issues. I think it is generally agreed that many of these issues would be considered defects. The issue is how far do you go? Three-prong 240-volt dryer receptacle? Hard wired smoke detectors? AFCI? Tamper-proof receptacles? If a house does not have these is that a defect?

Ken Rowe
08-05-2014, 09:08 PM
Many of the responses deal with obvious safety issues. I think it is generally agreed that many of these issues would be considered defects. The issue is how far do you go? Three-prong 240-volt dryer receptacle? Hard wired smoke detectors? AFCI? Tamper-proof receptacles? If a house does not have these is that a defect?

Yes, you list them in the report and suggest repair. Why would a HI not report them? Only the client can make the decision if the deficiencies are a big deal to them or not. That's not the job of the home inspector.

Bruce Ramsey
08-06-2014, 06:58 AM
Yes, you list them in the report and suggest repair. Why would a HI not report them? Only the client can make the decision if the deficiencies are a big deal to them or not. That's not the job of the home inspector.

To each their own. There are a great many things that changed over the years. Some defects most Hi's agree are items that need to be reported. Others are a bit more borderline. Most SOP's are sufficiently vague that allows lattitude and personal decision process making.

Homes are not required to be brought up to the current code unless renovations are made. Many of these "defects" are less than optimal but low probablility of danger to the occupants. We each need to decide where we draw our own personal line about to simply document the condition as different from current standards but acceptable at the time of installation or go further and recommend repair/upgrade.

Not every item installed to older standards is a Safety Concern.

Ken Rowe
08-06-2014, 11:01 AM
Homes are not required to be brought up to the current code unless renovations are made. Many of these "defects" are less than optimal but low probablility of danger to the occupants. This may be true in some areas but not all. Here in MN, many municipalities require repair or replacement of some deficient items upon the sale of the house. Such as; lack of backflow preventers, lack of hard wired smoke detectors, floor drains lacking cleanout access holes, and missing electrical bond jumpers at the water meter. Many of these are not hazardous problems but are required repairs. As we see here in MN, the local jurisdiction can choose to enforce any non-conforming code issues on any house, irregardless of its age. As a HI you'd better be able to document these issues, before the enforcement inspector shows up, otherwise your clients are going to wonder why they even paid you.




We each need to decide where we draw our own personal line about to simply document the condition as different from current standards but acceptable at the time of installation or go further and recommend repair/upgrade.

Not every item installed to older standards is a Safety Concern. And you must be able to accept responsibility for not reporting said items when your client's contractor says, "Your home inspector should have told you about this".

Mark Reinmiller
08-06-2014, 07:06 PM
Yes, you list them in the report and suggest repair. Why would a HI not report them? Only the client can make the decision if the deficiencies are a big deal to them or not. That's not the job of the home inspector.

Why would you not list them? Because it is unreasonable to expect every house to comply with the latest code. Because it creates liability if you are arbitrary in the way you inspect and report (do you really perform a code inspection based upon the latest codes on every inspection?).

I believe that part of our job is to define what is a defect. Just supplying clients with a bunch of information and then saying you decide if it is a defect is not the way to do a good job. In PA, we are required to report on material defects (there is a vague definition for this term regarding whether they significantly affect the value of the dwelling or are a potential hazard). So are these material defects?

Ken Rowe
08-06-2014, 10:23 PM
Why would you not list them? Because it is unreasonable to expect every house to comply with the latest code. Because it creates liability if you are arbitrary in the way you inspect and report (do you really perform a code inspection based upon the latest codes on every inspection?).

I believe that part of our job is to define what is a defect. Just supplying clients with a bunch of information and then saying you decide if it is a defect is not the way to do a good job. In PA, we are required to report on material defects (there is a vague definition for this term regarding whether they significantly affect the value of the dwelling or are a potential hazard). So are these material defects?

Mark, a HI isn't repairing the home, they are providing a report on the condition of the home. I don't expect every house to comply with the latest code. I'm a home inspector, I know better. Our clients actually do expect the majority of the house to meet current code. They don't know any better. No, I don't perform a code inspection and no, I don't advise them to upgrade their 2 x 4 walls to 2 x 6 to meet current codes.

I never said the client should define the defect. I said it's up to them to decide if it's a big deal to them. A bad furnace may not be a big deal to the client if they've got a family member who's an HVAC tech. The home inspector can't possibly know which defects are important to the client unless the home inspector actually tells them about the defect. Just because you (as the home inspector) don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean the person who's actually going to live in the house agrees with you. I perform my inspections with the client present. We actually talk about every issue I find. I'm not an inspector who tells the client to show up at the end, hand them the report and leave. I tell them about every aspect of the house.

Heck, I'll even tell my clients they have cloth sheaved wiring and there's no way to ground the circuits without rewiring. The wiring met code when it was installed and there's no mandate to replace it, but in today's world of electrical gadgetry most people can't live with it, the same with knob and tube. I'd rather they know about it before they purchase the home than 3 months after they've bought it. Do I tell them that it's a defect? Nope, just tell them they have it and the problems they may encounter if they need grounded circuits. Yes, I go beyond every inspection standard out there, but I get a ton of referrals from happy clients. My theory of home inspections is to tell the clients everything about their house. Let them make an educated decision about one of the largest purchases they'll ever make. The final decision on what's a big deal is left to them. This keeps me from getting the "you didn't tell me about this" call three months after they've closed.

Raymond Wand
08-07-2014, 04:08 AM
Top 10 Report Writing Tips
Top 10 Report Writing Tips (http://www.workingre.com/top-10-report-writing-tips/)

Garry Sorrells
08-07-2014, 04:29 AM
........... Our clients actually do expect the majority of the house to meet current code. They don't know any better. ..........


I have to say , WOW. But then you must be inspecting in the Lake Wobegon area. Most other people/clients have no idea of what Code is much else what it really means. Congratulation on such an informed population. Especially since those that have to deal with it on a daily basis have a hard time understanding and applying current Code.

Note:
For those that may not be familiar with the area it appears to be a tiny county, the seat of Mist County Minnesota. Near the geographic center of Minnesota that supposedly does not appear on maps because of the incompetence of surveyors who mapped out the state in the 19th century, near St. Olaf.

Most noted for the residents where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average," :thumb:

Raymond Wand
08-07-2014, 04:38 AM
Inspectors who dwell on code are misleading their clients. Clients seldom if ever ask if anything to code at least in my experience and I don't know all the codes and I don't let on I do, nor do I want to. Have yet to find any case law where a 'home inspector' was liable due to NOT reporting code deficiencies. Any cases against inspectors have always been argued in tort as contractual failings and/or negligent misrepresentation and not for failing to point out code infractions.

If anyone has any contrary case law contradicting my views please post away.

Secondly up here in Ontario, the authorities having jurisdiction and/or code authority have never condemned 60 amp service, knob and tube wiring, fuse panels, alu. wiring, cast iron waste lines, galvanized piping, therefore it erroneous and misleading for any inspector up here to indicate/imply otherwise. What has happened is the insurance industry has dictated what is acceptable for their underwriting purposes. The insurers are not code authorities, nor do they have authority to dictate codes. But inspectors have become responsible due to insurance issues to bring to the attention of their clients the issues as per the insurance industry and that could lead to a suit by a disgruntled client.

Further an insurance company (not all apparently) will most likely refuse to insure the home unless the system is upgraded/removed or will provide a window to correct the issue they find unacceptable.

Talk about a conflict between code and underwriting purposes and we the inspectors get caught in between.

Ken Rowe
08-07-2014, 06:39 AM
I have to say , WOW. But then you must be inspecting in the Lake Wobegon area. Most other people/clients have no idea of what Code is much else what it really means. Congratulation on such an informed population. Especially since those that have to deal with it on a daily basis have a hard time understanding and applying current Code.



I never said the clients know the code. When we get a client calling to set up an inspection we always ask if they have any concerns with the home. Half the time they state, "We want to make sure it's up to code". We explain that it's not going to be. They get it from watching TV and relatives watching TV. By the way, I've never listened to the show you're referring to.

Mark Reinmiller
08-07-2014, 06:49 PM
Mark, a HI isn't repairing the home, they are providing a report on the condition of the home. I don't expect every house to comply with the latest code. I'm a home inspector, I know better. Our clients actually do expect the majority of the house to meet current code. They don't know any better. No, I don't perform a code inspection and no, I don't advise them to upgrade their 2 x 4 walls to 2 x 6 to meet current codes.

I never said the client should define the defect. I said it's up to them to decide if it's a big deal to them. A bad furnace may not be a big deal to the client if they've got a family member who's an HVAC tech. The home inspector can't possibly know which defects are important to the client unless the home inspector actually tells them about the defect. Just because you (as the home inspector) don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean the person who's actually going to live in the house agrees with you. I perform my inspections with the client present. We actually talk about every issue I find. I'm not an inspector who tells the client to show up at the end, hand them the report and leave. I tell them about every aspect of the house.

Heck, I'll even tell my clients they have cloth sheaved wiring and there's no way to ground the circuits without rewiring. The wiring met code when it was installed and there's no mandate to replace it, but in today's world of electrical gadgetry most people can't live with it, the same with knob and tube. I'd rather they know about it before they purchase the home than 3 months after they've bought it. Do I tell them that it's a defect? Nope, just tell them they have it and the problems they may encounter if they need grounded circuits. Yes, I go beyond every inspection standard out there, but I get a ton of referrals from happy clients. My theory of home inspections is to tell the clients everything about their house. Let them make an educated decision about one of the largest purchases they'll ever make. The final decision on what's a big deal is left to them. This keeps me from getting the "you didn't tell me about this" call three months after they've closed.

Its fine to tell them everything about the house. But too many inspectors just throw everything together in the report and let the buyer and seller try to figure out what is truly a defect and what somebody wants to call a defect. If I think it is a significant concern, I call it a defect. If not, I may recommend it as an improvement or at least let them know the limitations, etc. That way they can better decide what is important and what to ask for instead of asking for everything to be brought up to today's standards.

BTW, there is plenty of fabric covered Romex (NM) with a ground wire. If you are talking about the old fat black Romex, yea, it does not have a ground, but fabric covered Romext was used up until the last 1960s or a little later and much of it manufactured after about 1950 had a ground wire.

Ken Rowe
08-07-2014, 09:00 PM
BTW, there is plenty of fabric covered Romex (NM) with a ground wire. If you are talking about the old fat black Romex, yea, it does not have a ground, but fabric covered Romext was used up until the last 1960s or a little later and much of it manufactured after about 1950 had a ground wire.

Never seen a ground wire in fabric covered wiring. However, I have seen knob and tube in a house built in 1968. Hot wire was covered in red fabric, neutral was black. And I have seen vinyl 2 wire romex in a house from the early 60's.

Back to the topic at hand, my belief is if the HI knows it's a defect, not code compliant, a problem according to the CPSC, or any other source, it should be documented in the report. We, as HIs have no right to withhold information from the client.

For those of you who don't agree with me do you actually tell the potential clients, when they first call you to set up the inspection, that there are items that you're going to see during the inspection that you have no intentions on telling them about? Do you actually tell them this in your contract?

Mark Reinmiller, Raymond Wand, Garry Sorrells, Bruce Ramsey, Dirk Jeanis you five seem to be the guys saying home inspectors should purposely keep information from their clients because you feel it doesn't matter to them. Don't you think your clients should be the ones to make that decision?

Raymond Wand
08-08-2014, 04:56 AM
Ken Rowe wrote in part:

For those of you who don't agree with me do you actually tell the potential clients, when they first call you to set up the inspection, that there are items that you're going to see during the inspection that you have no intentions on telling them about? Do you actually tell them this in your contract?

Mark Reinmiller, Raymond Wand, Garry Sorrells, Bruce Ramsey, Dirk Jeanis you five seem to be the guys saying home inspectors should purposely keep information from their clients because you feel it doesn't matter to them. Don't you think your clients should be the ones to make that decision?

1. When clients call to book an inspection I tell them its visual non-destructive and what systems are inspected. At inspection I also tell client there are items which are difficult to opine on due to finished walls, concealed areas, or no access and that conditions could exist which do not exhibit visual clues as per visual inspection. And that upon renovations other conditions could exist not obvious during inspection.

2. Of course I tell my clients of the issues I see, but I don't note all (nickle-dime) minor issues in the report, as I am striving to report major items that would be concern to clients.

Also I did not read anywhere in my posts in this thread where I indicated I would purposely keep info from my clients.

Ken do you provide an inclusive list of consumer recalls in your inspection or do you note some and then refer your client to the Consumer Protection site for a complete listing?

As I stated otherwise I am not a code inspector and I am not a walking book of knowledge on product recalls and don't intend to be. My contract succinctly states what my inspection limitations are and what is inspected and what is not.

Dirk Jeanis
08-08-2014, 06:01 AM
[QUOTE=Ken Rowe;246511. As we see here in MN, the local jurisdiction can choose to enforce any non-conforming code issues on any house, irregardless of its age. As a HI you'd better be able to document these issues, before the enforcement inspector shows up, otherwise your clients are going to wonder why they even paid you.".[/QUOTE]

It is sometimes good and reasonable to have certain upgrades required to be installed at an opportune time. At sale makes sense. At remodel does as well.

I am curious about the "enfrcement inspector showing up". Are you saying that a government inspector must inspect at each sale or do they just show up and knock and tell you they must inspect your home at random? I know this, no government employee is entering MY property without a warrant, ever. No warrant, no entry for any reason.

Dirk Jeanis
08-08-2014, 06:10 AM
you five seem to be the guys saying home inspectors should purposely keep information from their clients because you feel it doesn't matter to them. Don't you think your clients should be the ones to make that decision?

THis was NEVER the issue and in fact this kind of statement makes the entire conversation that much more important. Someone here started the "proverbial court of law" talk.

The issue becomes where to draw the line in a way that the liabiity of the HI is not greater than the cost of teh HI service. If the line is to liberal the HI is not delivering enough information and if the line is too conservative, the HI will be so responsible that he will be sued and loose more than he earns or can pay in premiums and deductibles.

No HI here can even agree at what level of knowledge and ability and inclusions in inspections is reasonable. This tells me that a jury will always be the word of last resort. This means that WE all lose every time. This is mainly because we wont agree as to how much knowledge and what kind it reasonable.

Ken Rowe
08-08-2014, 06:30 AM
Secondly up here in Ontario, the authorities having jurisdiction and/or code authority have never condemned 60 amp service, knob and tube wiring, fuse panels, alu. wiring, cast iron waste lines, galvanized piping, therefore it erroneous and misleading for any inspector up here to indicate/imply otherwise.




2. Of course I tell my clients of the issues I see, but I don't note all (nickle-dime) minor issues in the report, as I am striving to report major items that would be concern to clients.

Also I did not read anywhere in my posts in this thread where I indicated I would purposely keep info from my clients.



Raymond, please explain the contradictions. All of the deficiencies you've listed here are known problems. When you see them do you purposely not tell your clients about them?

Ken Rowe
08-08-2014, 06:41 AM
I am curious about the "enfrcement inspector showing up". Are you saying that a government inspector must inspect at each sale or do they just show up and knock and tell you they must inspect your home at random? I know this, no government employee is entering MY property without a warrant, ever. No warrant, no entry for any reason.

Depending on the city, some are AHJ inspectors, some are private contractors licensed by the city. Each city has different reporting standards, report forms, licensing, and insurance requirements for the inspector. The seller is the person responsible for scheduling and paying for this inspection. If the inspection is not completed, there will be no sale of the house. 13 cities in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area have this requirement. This is where the majority of my inspections take place.

Ken Rowe
08-08-2014, 06:51 AM
If there is a KNOWN dangerous defect in some system or design and it is well known and publicly advertiised, then yes an HI may have some responsibility to know and understand the danger. If not there is no reason to concern one's self, especially code changes to make things "safer", if it was code and consdsiered safe in 1990 and there is a new 20XX code that is to make it SAFER not just safe.

There must be some line to draw, I think that is the line.





THis was NEVER the issue and in fact this kind of statement makes the entire conversation that much more important. Someone here started the "proverbial court of law" talk.


Purposely keeping information away from your clients and out of the report is exactly the issue. All 5 of you have previously stated that is exactly what you do. I'd like to know if you tell your clients, prior to doing the inspection, that you're going to be withholding information from them.

Dirk Jeanis
08-08-2014, 07:20 AM
I'd like to know if you tell your clients, prior to doing the inspection, that you're going to be withholding information from them.

Ken you aren't acknowledging my statement. There must be some middle ground and a line of demarcation. Either that or under YOUR OWN ideology, if you miss anything that any third party might consider relevant in any way you are financially responsible and liable to your client's entire "perceived" loss.

Not even those in the profession here can agree how that should work. Therefore it is up to a jury (the exact wrong people to make that decision) and should be since even professionals cant agree. This will get VERY costly if there are suits, especially if atty's get ahold of this conversation!

I am thinking that the answer is in each HI contract and how well it is written. I say get a great atty and protect yourself as much as you can then give 100% to exceed your agreement every way you can. limit liability.

Raymond Wand
08-08-2014, 11:51 AM
Ken

I do not tell clients that a century home does not meet current codes because that is an incorrect irrelevant statement. Clients are not going to rip out a century old stair case because it does not meet current code, it just does not happen and no inspection authority is going to dictate otherwise.

Now if you were to ask me if I recommend upgrading K&T yes I would even though the electrical authority has never condemned it. But the insurers would most certainly want it removed and replaced with upgraded wiring while other insurers will simply accept a review by an licenced electrician or Electrical Safety Authority report stating it is fine and in good condition.

Bruce Ramsey
08-08-2014, 04:35 PM
Purposely keeping information away from your clients and out of the report is exactly the issue. All 5 of you have previously stated that is exactly what you do. I'd like to know if you tell your clients, prior to doing the inspection, that you're going to be withholding information from them.

Purposely withholding information. Separateing the wheat from the chaff.

As inspectors, our knowledge base regarding homes should be wider and deeper than most of our clients. We see lots of things that are inconsequential. We make judgement calls to report or not report. We use our experience and knowledge to differentate and report on those items we deem important.

What I deem is important will be different from what you deem important. You will include items I chose not to include and I will include items you will not.

Yes, we tell our clients we will not find every defect. Try performing an inspection on the same home immediately following your first inspection. You will find stuff you missed.

Some of the reasons one inspector may report an item over another has a lot to do with their training and life experiences. An inspector queried me today if I report a lack of deadbolts at all exterior doors. In a previous life I was a firefighter/EMT. I am more concerned about occupants getting out of the home in an emergency versus bad guys getting in. My brother-in-law the 20 yr veteran police officer disagrees with my position. I report interior keyed deadbolts at ANY and ALL exterior doors which is more stringent than code requirements. Lack of deadbolts does not even rate a verbal discussion. So who is more right, the inspector who reports a lack of deadbolts at every exterior door or the inspector who reports interior keyed deadbolts at any door? Neither postion is supported by code but both inspectors feel that their position is a Safety Issue.

Client this week said someone broke into his home while he was sleeping. He was very concerned about security. He was willing to choose trapped inside during an emergency over security based of his experinces. Even though the window next to the deadbolted door was signficantly easier to gain entrance to the home.

Ken Rowe
08-08-2014, 08:58 PM
Ken you aren't acknowledging my statement. There must be some middle ground and a line of demarcation. Either that or under YOUR OWN ideology, if you miss anything that any third party might consider relevant in any way you are financially responsible and liable to your client's entire "perceived" loss.






Yes, we tell our clients we will not find every defect. Try performing an inspection on the same home immediately following your first inspection. You will find stuff you missed.



We're not talking about inspectors missing deficiencies during the inspection...that happens to everyone. Both of you have previously stated that you do not report some known deficiencies to your clients. I asked if you tell them, prior to hiring you, that you will purposely not tell them about some of the deficiencies you find.

Missing somthing and defrauding your clients are two separate things. Missing something gets covered by my E&O insurance. Willfully not reporting a deficiency will not.

Mark Reinmiller
08-09-2014, 06:12 PM
We're not talking about inspectors missing deficiencies during the inspection...that happens to everyone. Both of you have previously stated that you do not report some known deficiencies to your clients. I asked if you tell them, prior to hiring you, that you will purposely not tell them about some of the deficiencies you find.

Missing somthing and defrauding your clients are two separate things. Missing something gets covered by my E&O insurance. Willfully not reporting a deficiency will not.

Something many inspectors lack is judgment. A good inspector needs to use judgment to determine what in fact is a defect and what is not. You probably do this also, but you seem to not recognize it. There are so many things in an older house that do not meet present standards. I point out many of these items. But lacking AFCIs, undersized ground wires in Romex, lack of hurricane ties on roof trusses (in an area that does not experience hurricanes), lack of hard-wired smoke detectors, windows that may be a bit smaller than required per present egress standards are just a few items I seldom if ever list. In my judgment they are not defects in an older house. Am I withholding knowledge of defects? I don't think so.

On the other hand, I sometimes include things I see as defects that may meet code. For years I have pointed out that built-in benches on high decks are a hazard. Children could easily stand on a bench and fall over the railing. They could do the same thing with a chair, but that is not built in. This was not a code violation until the 2012 IRC.

Raymond Wand
08-09-2014, 06:59 PM
Ken

I think you need to re-assess your use of the term 'defraud'. Missing or or failing to disclose a defect or witholding information is not defrauding. Withholding information is not a criminal act it's negligence in tort.

Ken Rowe
08-09-2014, 09:57 PM
Ken

I think you need to re-assess your use of the term 'defraud'. Missing or or failing to disclose a defect or witholding information is not defrauding. Withholding information is not a criminal act it's negligence in tort.

No, I'm pretty sure I used the correct word. Charging a person to perform and inspection then purposely leaving deficiencies out of the report when not telling the person you will be doing so=
obtaining money by deception.

de·fraud

diˈfrôd/
verb
verb: defraud; 3rd person present: defrauds; past tense: defrauded; past participle: defrauded; gerund or present participle: defrauding
illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.
"he used a false identity to defraud the bank of thousands of dollars"


synonyms:
swindle (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ah&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=define+swindle&sa=X&ei=5vrmU-6HF4GWyAT714HoDw&ved=0CCAQ_SowAA), cheat (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ah&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=define+cheat&sa=X&ei=5vrmU-6HF4GWyAT714HoDw&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA), rob (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ah&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=define+rob&sa=X&ei=5vrmU-6HF4GWyAT714HoDw&ved=0CCIQ_SowAA), embezzle (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ah&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=define+embezzle&sa=X&ei=5vrmU-6HF4GWyAT714HoDw&ved=0CCMQ_SowAA);

Ken Rowe
08-09-2014, 10:08 PM
Something many inspectors lack is judgment. A good inspector needs to use judgment to determine what in fact is a defect and what is not. You probably do this also, but you seem to not recognize it. There are so many things in an older house that do not meet present standards. I point out many of these items. But lacking AFCIs, undersized ground wires in Romex, lack of hurricane ties on roof trusses (in an area that does not experience hurricanes), lack of hard-wired smoke detectors, windows that may be a bit smaller than required per present egress standards are just a few items I seldom if ever list. In my judgment they are not defects in an older house. Am I withholding knowledge of defects? I don't think so.

On the other hand, I sometimes include things I see as defects that may meet code. For years I have pointed out that built-in benches on high decks are a hazard. Children could easily stand on a bench and fall over the railing. They could do the same thing with a chair, but that is not built in. This was not a code violation until the 2012 IRC.


Again you state that you pick and choose what you tell your clients during the inspection and in your report. Again I ask, do you tell them that you will purposely not tell them about some of the deficiencies you see prior to them hiring you?

Raymond Wand
08-10-2014, 04:40 AM
No your use is not correct. There is more to fraud / defrauding someone other then the simple dictionary example.

fraud legal definition of fraud (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)

Can you point out a legal case where an inspector has been charged with fraud due to withholding information purposefully in order to gain financially, or other benefit through deceit?

There has to be intent to defraud, and simply not pointing out something during an inspection, or failing to comment or report on an finding due to having knowledge thereof is not necessarily having intent to commit a fraud in order to gain financially simply for an inspection fee.

However; perhaps the word you may have intended to use was 'misrepresentation'.

I take umbrage as I am sure others do with you implying that there is a fraud being perpetrated because you feel we as inspectors with holding information. As I pointed out there is no fraud as per my example where a century home with non current code railing / pickets has to meet current code, and leaving same out of report is not in and of itself legally an intent to defraud any more than leaving out the fact a electrical cover plate was missing, and it was not reported because an inspector felt it was a insignificant in the over-all financial aspect of the transaction.

Ken Rowe
08-10-2014, 08:35 AM
I have to disagree with you Raymond. Unless, the inspector tells the client up front that they will not be reporting some deficiencies (which some inspectors do via their inspection agreement). This is extremely common practice in the HI industry and I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as the inspector informs the client prior to performing the inspection. The problem is, most inspectors don't inform their clients that they will be purposely leaving deficiencies out of the report.

As far as myself goes...my inspection agreement says basically that all observed deficiencies will be reported. And that's what I do. So again I ask you Raymond, do you tell your clients that you will be purposely leaving some deficiencies out of the report?

Mark Reinmiller
08-10-2014, 07:18 PM
Again you state that you pick and choose what you tell your clients during the inspection and in your report. Again I ask, do you tell them that you will purposely not tell them about some of the deficiencies you see prior to them hiring you?

Since you do not answer my questions, am I to assume that your report include defects such as undersized ground wires, the lack of hard-wired smoke detectors, etc?

Ken Rowe
08-10-2014, 08:30 PM
Since you do not answer my questions, am I to assume that your report include defects such as undersized ground wires, the lack of hard-wired smoke detectors, etc?

I've already answered that question:



As far as myself goes...my inspection agreement says basically that all observed deficiencies will be reported. And that's what I do.

Please point out any other question you feel I haven't answered.

In the mean time, please answer my previous question. Do you tell your clients that you will purposely not tell them about some of the deficiencies you see, prior to them hiring you?

Ken Rowe
08-10-2014, 08:52 PM
There are only three situations I see where a home inspector would not report a deficiency they've observed.

1. Their inspection agreement states that they document only major deficiencies and some minor deficiencies will not be reported.

2. The inspector does not want the hamper the sale of the house and wants a future referral from the agent.

3. The inspector is too lazy to include everything in the report.

Please let me know if i missed any other reasons.

Bruce Ramsey
08-12-2014, 04:45 PM
4. Its not a deficiency. It does not meet current standards, but is working as intended at time of installation.

Mark Reinmiller
08-12-2014, 06:31 PM
I've already answered that question:



Please point out any other question you feel I haven't answered.

In the mean time, please answer my previous question. Do you tell your clients that you will purposely not tell them about some of the deficiencies you see, prior to them hiring you?

I see. Then I am going to assume that there are quite a few deficiencies that you do not see.

Raymond Wand
08-12-2014, 06:52 PM
Ken wrote in part:

As far as myself goes...my inspection agreement says basically that all observed deficiencies will be reported. And that's what I do.

However at your website states in a copy of your report
This is not a technically exhaustive inspection and will not necessarily list all minor home maintenance or repair items

You seem to be contradicting yourself. So under your definition on your site you leave info out that may not be important to you but could be important to your client. Since you don't disclose the fact minor items may or may not be reported you could by your definition be a fraud perpetrated on your client.

I can appreciate that you would argue that you are not defrauding your client, but by leaving out info at your discretion is or could be argued to be negligent on your part. Do I have that right?

Ken Rowe
08-12-2014, 09:45 PM
Ken wrote in part:


However at your website states in a copy of your report

You seem to be contradicting yourself. So under your definition on your site you leave info out that may not be important to you but could be important to your client. Since you don't disclose the fact minor items may or may not be reported you could by your definition be a fraud perpetrated on your client.

I can appreciate that you would argue that you are not defrauding your client, but by leaving out info at your discretion is or could be argued to be negligent on your part. Do I have that right?

Raymond, try actually reading the words you've quoted.
This is not a technically exhaustive inspection and will not necessarily list all minor home maintenance or repair items

Nowhere in the quote, anywhere on my website, or in any report will you find a statement that says I purposely leave deficiencies out of the report at my discretion. (which is what we've been talking about). Sure, I can miss things just like anyone else and I don't go out of my way to find dirty carpet and nail holes that need spackling.

Keep researching though because its really amusing to me that you've actually taken your time to visit my site, download a sample report and apparently scoured it looking for anything to discredit me and what I've said. When, instead, you should be spending your time figuring out what you need to do to supply a better product to your clients.

- - - Updated - - -


I see. Then I am going to assume that there are quite a few deficiencies that you do not see.

I don't think so. But how would I know if I didn't see them? In 11 years and over 5,000 inspections I've never had anyone tell me after the inspection that I've missed something.

Ken Rowe
08-12-2014, 09:53 PM
4. Its not a deficiency. It does not meet current standards, but is working as intended at time of installation.

In my world not meeting current standards, whether that standard is code, manufacturer's current guidelines etc, is a deficiency.

Raymond Wand
08-13-2014, 03:58 AM
Ken

You have an over active imagination. Scouring your website to discredit you? I don't think I need to discredit you, after all you are the one who failed to comprehend the difference between fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Its readily apparent you know more then the rest of us, so I will have to disagree with you as you disagree with my views. Your website states what it states, maybe you need to clarify your website for the readers who take the time to verify what you preach.

This where I found your statement
http://minnesotahomeinspectors.com/resources/Samplereport.pdf
Page 2 Scope

Ken Rowe
08-13-2014, 08:58 AM
Ken

You have an over active imagination. Scouring your website to discredit you? I don't think I need to discredit you, after all you are the one who failed to comprehend the difference between fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Its readily apparent you know more then the rest of us, so I will have to disagree with you as you disagree with my views. Your website states what it states, maybe you need to clarify your website for the readers who take the time to verify what you preach.

This where I found your statement
http://minnesotahomeinspectors.com/resources/Samplereport.pdf
Page 2 Scope


Raymond,

Why are you taking this so personal? Why turn this into "you know more than the rest of us"? You are more than welcome to do your inspections any way you wish. It doesn't effect me in the least. Because I shared my way of doing inspections and reporting does that make me "know more than the rest of you"? I don't think so, but apparently you do and you're getting defensive. Sorry I've made you feel inadequate Raymond.

Interesting tactic, trying to make this about me by twisting the meaning of one sentence in a 60+ page report. Reminds me of the political ads currently running where one politician takes a snippet from the other candidates video and gives it a totally out of context meaning.

Maybe I need to clarify my website? What, you want me to put a disclaimer that says, "The following words are meant to be interpreted as they are written. Any adding of imaginary words, re-arraignment of the words or removal of any word may change the meaning or context of what's written and should not be attempted under any circumstances". What you lack in common sense you make up for with comedy.

Raymond Wand
08-13-2014, 10:20 AM
Raymond,

Why are you taking this so personal? Why turn this into "you know more than the rest of us"? You are more than welcome to do your inspections any way you wish. It doesn't effect me in the least. Because I shared my way of doing inspections and reporting does that make me "know more than the rest of you"? I don't think so, but apparently you do and you're getting defensive. Sorry I've made you feel inadequate Raymond.

Interesting tactic, trying to make this about me by twisting the meaning of one sentence in a 60+ page report. Reminds me of the political ads currently running where one politician takes a snippet from the other candidates video and gives it a totally out of context meaning.

Maybe I need to clarify my website? What, you want me to put a disclaimer that says, "The following words are meant to be interpreted as they are written. Any adding of imaginary words, re-arraignment of the words or removal of any word may change the meaning or context of what's written and should not be attempted under any circumstances". What you lack in common sense you make up for with comedy.

Whose taking it personal? Not me, I am only pointing out for discussion sake your opinions and my contra views. You could never make me feel inadequate, so no apology necessary. As for common sense it appears I make up for the short fall with my ability to make you laugh. Glad you appreciate the comical touch I provided.

Continued success!

Ken Rowe
08-13-2014, 01:53 PM
However at your website states in a copy of your report

You seem to be contradicting yourself. So under your definition on your site you leave info out that may not be important to you but could be important to your client.


Let's pretend for a minute that we're all in Raymond's fantasy world and the statement;" "
This is not a technically exhaustive inspection and will not necessarily list all minor home maintenance or repair item" actually means that I will be intentionally not reporting deficiencies at my discretion.


Since you don't disclose the fact minor items may or may not be reported you could by your definition be a fraud perpetrated on your client. But, I did disclose it. You graciously pointed out my disclosure in the sample report. A copy of which is available to the public, the same way you got it. In fact, the "Scope" of the inspection is emailed out to each of my clients, along with an Inspection Agreement, prior to even conducting the inspection.

So, in your fantasy world Raymond, how am I not disclosing this information?

Back to reality now Raymond. Since I don't have the time or the inclination to scour the web looking for the answer, why don't you tell us how you disclose to your potential clients that you won't be including all observed deficiencies in your inspection?

Raymond Wand
08-13-2014, 02:53 PM
Thanks Ken,

Yup I am living in a fantasy world so I guess there's no point in carrying on the conversation since I don't wish to be seen as discrediting you any further. ;)