PDA

View Full Version : Re-Inspections



Jeff Eastman
04-17-2007, 06:49 AM
..........

Scott Patterson
04-17-2007, 07:16 AM
When they ask you!

Rick Hurst
04-17-2007, 07:38 AM
Tell your client that they should obtain copies of receipts from whoever performed the repairs along with any warranty information.

If we have a client you really wants a re-inspection I will do it. I charge 50% of the original inspection to go back. I require a copy of the repair request furnished by my client to the seller. We inspect only the items on that list and we are only commenting that some type of repair has been performed.

It not done correctly in my opinion, I simply state that so and the client should call the repair person prior to closing to correct any issues.

We do not warrant any of the repairs and our contract states this about re-inspections.

As long as your client knows that information, we have never had a complaint about it. Not one.

Eric Barker
04-17-2007, 07:52 AM
There are quite a few inspector who decline re-inspections because they don't want the liability. I don't understand the reasoning. It is still a visual inspection, just as was the initial inspection. If one were concerned about what could not be seen in the re-inspection then why would the first one be any different?

I agree that having the receipts is golden - those alone can tell you a lot about the contractor's work. They're often vague, don't address what you had in your report and the re-inspection can often determine that the work indicated on the receipt was simply not done. In fact, when I do re-inspections, rarely was all the work done correctly.

Richard Rushing
04-17-2007, 09:56 AM
Eric stated: "In fact, when I do re-inspections, rarely was all the work done correctly."

I would remove the word (from my experiences) "correctly". Hell, it is rare that all the work was done! More than 50% of the time the lists will include items that haven't been touched/ repaired but were on the repair list.

I've been told... "Well, when the HVAC guy got there, he said the trap vent didn't need to be past the trap. So he didn't do anything"

My reply-- "It no longer matters what he thinks... the contract ammendment (signed by the seller) stated that repairs will be made to that item".

That's just one of the fights that goes on and on.

Rich

Nick Ostrowski
04-17-2007, 02:43 PM
Jeff, I tell my clients that my E&O does not cover me on reinspects and it's the truth. Many policies will not extend coverage to you for reinspections. Makes my decision pretty easy.

Rick Hurst
04-17-2007, 09:51 PM
Here is a find today on a re-inspection. The seller was requested have the water supply lines on the water heater insulated and other water heater defects repaired by a Licensed Plumbing contractor with receipts to show work performed.

This is what my client got as a repair.

Jerry Peck
04-17-2007, 10:34 PM
I used to tell them that, sure, I can charge you to come out and look at the repaired area, but I will not be able to tell you how they did whatever they did, or even if they did what they were supposed to do, all I would be doing is taking you money from you and giving you no good usable information for it ... but, if you insist, my re-inspection fee is $150 per hour, with a 3 hour minimum ... are you really sure you want me to waste your money?

I had one taker on that, and about an hour later they called back and said 'I get it, you will not be able to tell me anything, and *I* will have to pay you $450 for that 'nothing'. Never mind coming out.'

I would have already told them to get receipts from LICENSED CONTRACTORS and warranties on all repairs, make sure the warranties are transferable to the new owner, you.

It would always end up the same - no receipts by licensed contractors and no warranties.

It took a few years, but most of the inspectors in South Florida felt the same and we convinced our clients that it was better to just take the money and they can contract out for the repairs.

Russel Ray
04-20-2007, 06:19 PM
I think that if one is afraid to do re-inspections of work that has been done, then one should never inspect a brand new house that has never been lived in either. Same difference.

And if the work was not done correctly, and in some cases not done at all, I sure want my Clients to know that information, and I'm probably the only one qualified or willing to tell them.

wayne soper
04-20-2007, 07:10 PM
hey, those towels were in my drawer last week! what the F, damb gremlins

Kevin Luce
04-20-2007, 08:17 PM
I think that if one is afraid to do re-inspections of work that has been done, then one should never inspect a brand new house that has never been lived in either. Same difference.

And if the work was not done correctly, and in some cases not done at all, I sure want my Clients to know that information, and I'm probably the only one qualified or willing to tell them.

Agree

Thom Walker
04-20-2007, 09:04 PM
It's amazing how fewer people want reinspections when they are charged appropriately for them. That's been the solution for me. I don't charge what Jerry did per hour, but I do calculate a half day's earnings and charge that because I can't be booked two places at one time.

But never fall for the, "It will be paid at closing" or "the builder (or seller's agent) will pay you for the reinspection." If you elect to do reinspections, insist on payment before you give them the results. People tend to get upset when it doesn't go well the second time around.

I subscribe to the get and retain receipts theory and try my best to get my clients to do so. My line is, "I'll take as much of your money as you're willing to give me, but I'll feel better if I can give you something valuable in return."

Eric Van De Ven
04-21-2007, 03:41 AM
There are quite a few inspector who decline re-inspections because they don't want the liability. I don't understand the reasoning. It is still a visual inspection, just as was the initial inspection. If one were concerned about what could not be seen in the re-inspection then why would the first one be any different?

I agree that having the receipts is golden - those alone can tell you a lot about the contractor's work. They're often vague, don't address what you had in your report and the re-inspection can often determine that the work indicated on the receipt was simply not done. In fact, when I do re-inspections, rarely was all the work done correctly.

Eric and Russel,
I'll answer your statements and questions with this example:

Home inspector goes out and finds three leaks in a 10 year old shingle roof. The homeowner has the repairs done by a handyman working under a GCs license. The home inspector comes back and says all the repairs were done after viewing the invoice.

First rain storm comes along and the new homeowner has several roof leaks. The contractor did not give any warranty.

A licensed roofer comes out and says that all of the repairs were done improperly which explains the leaks and now, in order to do the proper repairs, the roofer says that the entire roof will have to be replaced at a cost of $15,000.00.

I would imagine that when this gets to court, the home inspector will have to pay.

For minor items, leaky drains and such, I tell my clients that they don't need me to come hold their hands at $350.00 per hour to see if a drain line is leaking or if a GFI trips.

Major items such as roofs, a/c systems, and structural items are to be repaired by licensed contractors with warranties. NO exceptions. Also, I tell my clients that you want to see proposals and warranties before you buy the home. The other option is like Jerry said, take the money and hire your own contractors.

Michael Greenwalt
04-21-2007, 04:46 AM
Don't do re-inspections period. Insurance doesn't cover me, my attorney tells me its a door you cant come back from liability wise, and it is never a good idea. I prefer to refer to those I pay to protect me and to do otherwise is foolish. Theorize all you want but if no one can protect my back I don't choose to jeopardize my business and my family over a small fee.

Eric Barker
04-21-2007, 04:38 PM
My opinion here.

If an inspector is not willing to do a re-inspection he certainly cannot say he is full service. In essence, I think that an inspector who will not assist with a re-inspection is leaving his client high and dry. Too often on this forum there are negative comments about all the lousy contractors yet there seems to be little concern for leaving the client to fend for themselves after the initial inspection.

In looking through some websites I see inspectors making some significant claims as to their abilities. What I seem to be hearing here is that some inspectors would not know how to tell if a repair was done correctly. If that is the case then there would be question as to whether that inspector could have recognized problems on the initial inspection.

I have absolutely no hesitation or reservation about conducting re-inspections. I see no increased liability issue. My clients know that if any contractor disputes my findings that I will step to the plate and backup my reports. I do not charge to go back out and meet such contractors - it's a service that I promote.

Sorry for the bluntness, but those of you who are "afraid" of re-inspections, of any liability, of being wrong - you and I are in different leagues and I cannot identify with your reasonings. Perhaps some websites should be changed to reflect that followup re-inspection support is not provided. Let the client know up front what he can expect after he pays you for your service. It's the fair and professional thing to do.

Jerry Peck
04-21-2007, 04:50 PM
If an inspector is not willing to do a re-inspection he certainly cannot say he is full service.
-
Sorry for the bluntness, but those of you who are "afraid" of re-inspections, of any liability, of being wrong - you and I are in different leagues and I cannot identify with your reasonings. Perhaps some websites should be changed to reflect that followup re-inspection support is not provided. Let the client know up front what he can expect after he pays you for your service. It's the fair and professional thing to do.

"you and I are in different leagues"

I suppose we were, mine was top end service and I gave my clients what they wanted, expected, and the I gave them more.

"and I cannot identify with your reasonings"

Obviously. But that does not make you right either.

Unlike some inspectors clients (apparently, anyway) my clients were not dumb, they understood why they hired me, and why them paid me top dollar.

My clients fully understood why I would not, could not, give them the 'A OK' for repairs which were done when I was not there and which were no longer visible and accessible enough to say 'Yep, that'un was done alrighty.'

My clients were smarter than than, and they hired me because I was smarter than that.

I felt there was no need to respond to Russel, but there was a need to respond to the above post.

Like you, sorry if I'm blunt - but it is needed at times.

Eric Van De Ven
04-21-2007, 05:54 PM
My opinion here.

If an inspector is not willing to do a re-inspection he certainly cannot say he is full service. In essence, I think that an inspector who will not assist with a re-inspection is leaving his client high and dry. Too often on this forum there are negative comments about all the lousy contractors yet there seems to be little concern for leaving the client to fend for themselves after the initial inspection.

In looking through some websites I see inspectors making some significant claims as to their abilities. What I seem to be hearing here is that some inspectors would not know how to tell if a repair was done correctly. If that is the case then there would be question as to whether that inspector could have recognized problems on the initial inspection.

I have absolutely no hesitation or reservation about conducting re-inspections. I see no increased liability issue. My clients know that if any contractor disputes my findings that I will step to the plate and backup my reports. I do not charge to go back out and meet such contractors - it's a service that I promote.

Sorry for the bluntness, but those of you who are "afraid" of re-inspections, of any liability, of being wrong - you and I are in different leagues and I cannot identify with your reasonings. Perhaps some websites should be changed to reflect that followup re-inspection support is not provided. Let the client know up front what he can expect after he pays you for your service. It's the fair and professional thing to do.

It is not that some of us, especially here in South Florida, are "afraid" of re-inspections, it is that we realize that we are not inspecting, we are guaranteeing someone elses work.

Would you guarantee your dentists or doctors work?

Although I don't charge as much as Jerry did, my clients are also smart enough to know what they are paying me for. If they want me to hold their hands, I will... but it will come with a steep price.



What I seem to be hearing here is that some inspectors would not know how to tell if a repair was done correctly. If that is the case then there would be question as to whether that inspector could have recognized problems on the initial inspection.

I gave an example above. It is not fiction. It has happened and the company put a roof on for free. It was the first thing I did when I started working for that company back in 1988. I didn't do the inspection, one of their highly trained inspectors did.

You tell me exactly how you can "visually" tell a roof has been repaired properly with out being there to see the work being done. To use your phrase, I'll be blunt, you can't.

Kevin Luce
04-21-2007, 06:23 PM
A licensed roofer comes out and says that all of the repairs were done improperly which explains the leaks and now, in order to do the proper repairs, the roofer says that the entire roof will have to be replaced at a cost of $15,000.00.



I guess I would ask myself why I didn't recognize the problems (that the roofer noticed) when I went and re-inspected the roof. If the problem was not visible at the time of the re-inspection, then that goes beyond the scope of an inspection which would be the same standards used during the first inspection.

A buyer calls me to do a home inspection. I get there and the seller shows me a receipt showing that part of the roof has been repaired two days ago, do I (as a home inspector) inform my client (the buyer) that I will not be inspecting that repaired part of the roof?

Limitation: I (the home inspector) did not inspect recently repaired part of roof due to ???.

For me to understand, I really need somebody to fill in where the question marks are.

Eric Barker
04-21-2007, 06:56 PM
Eric, Now this is beginning to fall into place. Where did the guaranteeing part come from? I have never considered a re-inspection as a guarantee of someone else's work. An initial inspection is not a guarantee. No matter what the circumstances, my (our) inspections are visual and I fully agree with you, you can't comment on what you can't see. That's spelled out in my contract just as it probably is in most other inspection contracts as well as any SOP that I have ever seen. If I go out to look at a roof repair and all looks well I will tell the client it looks good. But I make sure that the client understands that looking good can still leak.

I think that if the client understands the reality and limitations of home inspections they can accept them for what they are which is far more than not using us at all. Perhaps if re-inspections are such a concern to some inspectors then perhaps the scope and breadth of our work has not been clearly laid out on the table. Getting client expectations in line is vital.

I have had some re-inspection requests in which there would have been no way for me to know if the repair corrected the problem such as leakage from a condensing furnace. For those I decline the re-inspection and say why and stress the importance of a detailed receipt as well as warranty info from the contractor.

Thanks for the reply, it explains why we were on such different pages.

Jerry Peck
04-21-2007, 08:20 PM
Where did the guaranteeing part come from? I have never considered a re-inspection as a guarantee of someone else's work.

Exactly.

*WE* never considered re-inspections to be a guarantee either.

BUT ...

The clients did/do/have.

Jerry Peck
04-21-2007, 08:36 PM
I guess I would ask myself why I didn't recognize the problems (that the roofer noticed) when I went and re-inspected the roof. If the problem was not visible at the time of the re-inspection, then that goes beyond the scope of an inspection which would be the same standards used during the first inspection.

A buyer calls me to do a home inspection. I get there and the seller shows me a receipt showing that part of the roof has been repaired two days ago, do I (as a home inspector) inform my client (the buyer) that I will not be inspecting that repaired part of the roof?

Limitation: I (the home inspector) did not inspect recently repaired part of roof due to ???.

For me to understand, I really need somebody to fill in where the question marks are.

Kevin,

You listed two totally separate and distinct scenarios as though they are the same.

Here is why they are not the same.

1) You go to inspect a roof and point out what you see and what was done wrong (those repairs) regarding the part you can still see.

You report the roof needs so-and-so work done.

2) You now go and re-inspect the repairs made to so-and-so work.

In 1) above, you knew nothing about 'what was there before the repair', you are only commenting on what is visible.

In 2) above, you know about 'what was there before the repair', AND, you are there to say it was done, done correctly, not done, or not done correctly.

Saying 'it was done' as the same as saying 'it was done correctly'.

Saying 'it was not done' is the easy one - it either was done, or was not (no work done at all).

Saying 'it was not done correctly' is possible but not necessarily correct in your assessment as, the part which may no longer be visible may actually 'be correct', just the part you can see is 'not correct'. To say the repair is 'not correct' leaves you open to being wrong if another roofer opens the repair up and finds the underlying preparation work correct, just the finishing off of the repair was incorrect. To iffy to address this aspect.

Saying (this is the riskiest part as you really have no idea if what was done was actually *what YOU reported it needed*) 'it was done correctly' when you really have no idea *HOW* *IT WAS DONE* below the top surface you can see. Yet, you were handed a receipt, by a licensed roofing contractor, and you are being paid (or doing it at no charge - your choice) to come down and tell everyone 'This is what I wrote up and this is what the licensed contractor did, *AND IT IS OKAY*.' Yet you have *no idea* of what was done below that top layer of the repair.

Yet, the next inspector in (or the next roofer in) may say 'That's all wrong.' Why? Because they *SUSPECT* (don't know until the repair is ripped open) that the repair is wrong, because 'those repairs are always done wrong'. The next inspector cannot see anything you cannot see, but you have pre-existing knowledge of that area which they do not, so you judge it differently. The next roofer coming in sees the same thing the next inspector does, a repair with no previous knowledge of what it was like, and, like the next inspector, he knows his guys always do this wrong, and he knows other roofers always do this wrong, so he takes the safe bet and says 'It's done wrong.' Oh, yeah, he will also have the advantage that, if when he opens the repair up and finds it is actually right, to repair it back right, and then come down off the roof and say 'Yep, just as I suspected, they had done it wrong.'

Would anyone know, or even suspect, anything different? Nope.

Eric Van De Ven
04-22-2007, 04:49 AM
I guess I would ask myself why I didn't recognize the problems (that the roofer noticed) when I went and re-inspected the roof. If the problem was not visible at the time of the re-inspection, then that goes beyond the scope of an inspection which would be the same standards used during the first inspection.

Here is why: The hardest thing to do is to go in after someone else has been there and fix what they did wrong. In the example I gave, the roof was ten years old and had two valley leaks and a field leak. The handyman "repaired" the valleys and "repaired" the field leak.

After the homeowner moved in, everything started leaking. When they called a roofer, the roofer started to take the roof apart and there was no metal in the valley where the repair was made. He told the homeowners that he wasn't going to do the repair unless he replaced the valley and the other valley as well. The other re[paired valley connected to another valley and that was now leaking due to the repair of the other valley.

At this point, the roofer wanted nothing to do with the roof and said the only way he would do anything was if he replaced the roof because he suspected that several other things were wrong.



Where did the guaranteeing part come from? I have never considered a re-inspection as a guarantee of someone else's work.

Perhaps you should contact an attorney and ask him about that. His answer may make you re-think your views on this.:)

Jack Feldmann
04-22-2007, 07:06 AM
I would like to add this to the discussion.
My insurance company (and several others) does not cover me for: progress construction inspections, OR follow up re-inspections.

They DO cover me for FULL inspections of homes, new or old.

THAT alone is enough for me to NOT do re-inspections.

That said, I have done re-inspections ever since I started business (about 18 years now). However, when I found out I wasn't covered (my bad for not reading the entire policy before), I have moved away from doing them.

I am faced with the dilemma of trying to give my clients the best possible service, and trying to protect myself from lawsuits.

There have been many times during re-inspections (and during regular inspections) that it just isn't possible to see everything you need to see to determine if it is A-OK. It is never a comfortable situation, however in a re-inspection mode, I think you are at a higher risk than during the initial inspection, since they want to "know" it has been taken care of properly.

JF

Eric Barker
04-22-2007, 07:37 AM
Eric,

If an attorney thinks that a re-inspection is a guarantee then he's pulling that out of thin air. I'd really like to know where that expectation comes from. It's not from our profession. No doubt that attorneys can create pause for consideration but they also are no reason to scurry under the bushes either. Between a SOP, an inspection contract and communicating with clients expectations can be kept in line - this is vital.

As for insurance coverage not covering re-inspections - I don't have that restriction in my policy.

Kevin Luce
04-22-2007, 08:24 AM
Jerry, I had to read your last post a couple of time to make sure I understood the point you were making. I feel I know what you are saying, but it sounds like a lawyer trying to win a case on a technicality.

I personally don't see the difference between inspecting a "just repair roof" during the first inspection or going back and inspecting a "just repair roof" during a re-inspection. In both causes, the clients are relying on you to inform them if any visual problems or potential problems. Reporting the limitation is always done in a report.

I really enjoy reading everyones post here. It makes me re-think what type of service I provide and the possible consequences. At this time, I will continue offering this service until I decide not to or my insurance changes.

Thank you!:)

Jerry Peck
04-22-2007, 11:47 AM
If an attorney thinks that a re-inspection is a guarantee then he's pulling that out of thin air. I'd really like to know where that expectation comes from. It's not from our profession.

Eric B.,

The point is, it does not matter who or where the attorneys get their ideas from. Once gotten, it is easy to find judges, juries, and precedent to substantiate the supposition that, if, as a professional paid inspector, the inspector 'should have been able to' determine that the repair was not made in accordance with what that same inspector previously reported as needing to be done.

From that point on, the professional inspector will be held to a higher standard for repairs made to items in their reports than they will be held to for 'unknown conditions' which are lurking beneath the surface. In the first case, you were there, your professional opinion was that it was wrong and needed repair (and that's what you reported), and now you are being asked to bless the repair based on the color of the paint applied over the surface (exaggerating the point that you are only reporting on only what you can now see), and you do so ... versus ... having no previous knowledge of a specific roof and reporting on 'what is not right' about it.

Jerry Peck
04-22-2007, 11:54 AM
Jerry, I had to read your last post a couple of time to make sure I understood the point you were making. I feel I know what you are saying, but it sounds like a lawyer trying to win a case on a technicality.

My post was meant to make one think about the entire concept in broader terms, and you did.

You don't think you would lose on a technicality?

By the way, 'on a technicality' simply means 'based on facts in evidence and the wording of the law and the charge against a person'. If you stab someone with a knife and you are charged with shooting them, you will get off.

"It's just a technicality" that you stabbed them instead of shooting them, they are still dead.

It happens all the time.

Shane Pouch
04-22-2007, 12:32 PM
Eric B.

I agree with your philosophies - especially regarding service to the client. It's all about setting the "table of expectations" with each and every client (regardless of how smart I think they are). If this vital step is overlooked, or abbreviated, regardless of the kind of inspection (whole-house or re-), you better hold on to your hat! In my opinion, pre-inspection protocol is the SINGLE most important thing you can do to manage your risks (outside of a quality inspection).

Now, if an inspector's E&O does not cover them for re-inspections, then by all means act accordingly.

The whole "last man in" argument has always baffled me. What if a client buys a house you inspected and decided not to ask for any repairs - that you recommended? Guess what? You're the last man in! This happens all the time and is essentially no different than the position you're in after a re-inspection.

I guess what I'd like to know is why do the E&O insurance companies not cover re-inspections? Can anyone answer this?

Eric Van De Ven
04-22-2007, 12:41 PM
The whole "last man in" argument has always baffled me. What if a client buys a house you inspected and decided not to ask for any repairs - that you recommended? Guess what? You're the last man in! This happens all the time and is essentially no different than the position you're in after a re-inspection.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

If no repairs were done, too bad for your client. You found the things wrong you were supposed to.

After the repairs were done, you inspected "the repairs", someone else's work. Not your work. The initial inspection was "your work".

In my early days, when I did re inspections, I said that a drain line was no longer leaking. It had been repaired and was no longer leaking. It looked OK.
Three weeks later, I was at the same house fixing this drain line the right way. It was the last re inspection I ever did for a fee.

I wonder where Jeff Hooper is. I am pretty sure he has dealt with this in a courtroom.

For anything further on this, see Jerrys post above. Someday, when it happens to you, you will remember this thread.;)

Shane Pouch
04-22-2007, 01:00 PM
Eric V.

I don't think it is as big a deal as you make it out to be, no more so than the original inspection.

But, we can agree to disagree.

Eric Van De Ven
04-22-2007, 01:34 PM
Eric V.

I don't think it is as big a deal as you make it out to be, no more so than the original inspection.

But, we can agree to disagree.

I have given two examples in my posts above. That is why I will not "agree to disagree". I have facts that it can, will, and did happen.

Jack Feldmann
04-22-2007, 01:49 PM
Eric B.,

I'm sure you have checked with your insurance company - but I "thought" I was covered until I started checking. I followed this topic up with several insurance companies at the ASHI conference in CA in January and found the ones I talked to had similar policies (no pun intended). I didn't talk to every insurance company there, though.

Obviously, yours may be different.
JF

Jerry Peck
04-22-2007, 02:19 PM
Eric V.

I don't think it is as big a deal as you make it out to be, no more so than the original inspection.

But, we can agree to disagree.

Eric V.,

When someone says 'we can agree to disagree', like Russel frequently said, that means their mind is made up and has been closed to further thought and opposing views.

We can take a horse to water, but some will drown themselves just so they do not have to take a drink. :confused:

Victor DaGraca
04-22-2007, 02:36 PM
or....... my favorite.......
Some will read about it.......
some will listen ............
Some actually have to urinate on that electric fence to see if it is live......

Eric Van De Ven
04-22-2007, 02:46 PM
Eric V.,

When someone says 'we can agree to disagree', like Russel frequently said, that means their mind is made up and has been closed to further thought and opposing views.

We can take a horse to water, but some will drown themselves just so they do not have to take a drink. :confused:

I always viewed those statements as a "cop out" because there isn't any factual argument for the other side.

Since this topic has most likely exhausted itself,

Enjoy:

Shane Pouch
04-22-2007, 08:02 PM
I always viewed those statements as a "cop out" because there isn't any factual argument for the other side.

There has been plenty of factual argument for "the other side", you just haven't been listening. You operate as you do, because you have "facts", and that makes you right. Therefore, you don't see any merit in remarks made by “the other side”. You view “the other side” as wrong, and making bad judgments in how they choose to conduct business.

If there is a "cop out", it is not serving the client when they request it - just because one has experienced adverse conditions in the past, or thinks he might in the future.

Like I said before, it's all about setting the table of expectations.



When someone says 'we can agree to disagree', like Russel frequently said, that means their mind is made up and has been closed to further thought and opposing views.


Wow! Simply stating an opinion on something and being committed to it now means that I’m close-minded. No, it means that I’m stating my opinion. I know it's going to be hard for you to believe, but there really are folks out there who want to hear testimonials from opposing ways of thinking to help them form their own way of doing things.

For you to tell me I'm close-minded is the funniest thing I've heard all weekend! What makes you, or Eric V., any less close-minded than me, or Eric B.? Who is the judge of that? You? Don't tell me I'm being close-minded - what a joke.

Jack Feldmann
04-22-2007, 08:43 PM
"If there is a "cop out", it is not serving the client when they request it "

I once had a potential client that asked if I would be able to check if there had ever been pets in the house. I said that since the house was 25 or so years old, I would have NO IDEA if there had been. She then asked if I couldn't go around and smell the carpet. No I couldn't and she should find another inspector that might be willing to do that for her, or was psychic and could tell if the carpet was ever replaced in 25 years too. There was more to the conversation, but you get the point.

There are many times that the clients "expectations" are far greater than we are able to deliver, even IF we are more than willing to provide a great service. Sometimes we just can not do something a client wants, or "expects" us to do.

There might be that client that "requests" that you climb that 12/12 slate roof during a freezing rain storm. Is it a cop out to tell them NO?

I'm sure Mr. Super Inspector would fly his personal helicopter to check out the roof for those clients, and with his x-ray goggles be able to tell them how many and what kind of fasteners were used too. But I think that most of us would have to say "sorry, no I can't".
JF

Nick Ostrowski
04-22-2007, 10:08 PM
"If there is a "cop out", it is not serving the client when they request it - just because one has experienced adverse conditions in the past, or thinks he might in the future."

This is called operating your business as you see fit. One could also say your current and future business decisions are based on past mistakes or decisions that didn't work out as planned. For example, I used to perform pre-drywall inspections but no longer. Why? After having three separate pre-drywalls inspections canceled within a couple hours of the scheduled time due to resistance from the builder in allowing the client to have the inspection, I said enough. I would no longer clog a slot on my schedule for a job that only earned me 1/3 of the fee of a full inspection. If you'd like me to come perform a full pre-settlement inspection when the house is in a finished state, I'd be happy to assist you.

Just because somebody asks for something doesn't mean they are going to get it. There are far too many scenarios to list but just to name a few..........

"I understand there is standing water on the floor in front of the service panel but you are going to check the inside aren't you? I need to know if something is wrong for my negotiations."

"I'd like you to move the entertainment center to check that outlet or HVAC register."

"I'm going to postdate this check for a week from today when I get paid. But I'll still receive my report tomorrow, correct?"

Whoever came up with the phrase "the customer is always right" didn't know what they were talking about.

Joseph P. Hagarty
04-22-2007, 10:25 PM
I would no longer clog a slot on my schedule for a job that only earned me 1/3 of the fee of a full inspection. If you'd like me to come perform a full pre-settlement inspection when the house is in a finished state, I'd be happy to assist you.




Our fees for Phase Inspections generally command a Higher contracted rate over an extended period in comparison to a Standard Inspection due to the nature of the Inspection requested.

Client expectations may vary...

Tim Moreira
04-22-2007, 10:28 PM
Nick,



Whoever came up with the phrase "the customer is always right" didn't know what they were talking about.



Noooooooo, no, no...that is an employer talking to his/her employee about customer service.

At the hospital I work at at night I get requests to do things that are insane. My boss/administration thinks I/we should do what ever is asked of us no matter what to *satisfy* the customer whether they are *right* or *wrong* no quetions asked.

BTW, in *Corporate America*, they (customers) are *never* wrong in the eyes of your employer.

Sad, but too often true:mad:

Oh...and just one more thing: A few months back a coworker/friend of mine was terminated from the hospital for having a disagreement with a visitor over a stupid TV. The visitor was wrong, but went complaining to administration. Long story short, my buddy lost his job! The powers that be didn't care that my buddy was *right* and the visitor was *wrong*. He made the complaint and that was the end of this guy's career after 7 years of service. Administration is not concerned with right and wrong only the customer survey reports.

This is one of the many reasons I got into HI so that I could work for myself and get away from that kind of crap.

Eric Van De Ven
04-22-2007, 10:34 PM
There has been plenty of factual argument for "the other side", you just haven't been listening. You operate as you do, because you have "facts", and that makes you right. Therefore, you don't see any merit in remarks made by “the other side”. You view “the other side” as wrong, and making bad judgments in how they choose to conduct business.

I see merit in an open discussion.
Here is the "factual argument" you are making:


I have had some re-inspection requests in which there would have been no way for me to know if the repair corrected the problem such as leakage from a condensing furnace. For those I decline the re-inspection and say why and stress the importance of a detailed receipt as well as warranty info from the contractor.

Using your quote above, you have no way of knowing if certain repairs were made, like the leaking condensing furnace. Using that as a precedent, you also would not be able to see if plumbing pipes in a wall were repaired, a roof, especially a flat roof was repaired properly and I could go on. You don't inspect the major repair items.

My question is, what repairs do you inspect?
Do you do the same thing, a "visual" re inspection that your client could do? Then, you actually charge them for something that they could do?
How is that serving your client? It sounds like someone extracting every last dollar from a client!

Nick Ostrowski
04-22-2007, 11:37 PM
"My boss/administration thinks I/we should do what ever is asked of us no matter what to *satisfy* the customer whether they are *right* or *wrong* no quetions asked."

Tim, I don't care who is saying it to who. The customer is not always right and is quite often wrong. Your bosses just don't want to deal with the headaches and there are fewer of them if the employees just give the customers what they want (therefore, let the customers THINK they are right). Your bosses know the customer isn't always right and so does corporate America which I was a part of as a C/S supervisor for 5 years prior to HI work. Trust me, I know all about this convoluted notion and the game companies play. And in your friend's case who had his employment terminated after 7 years over a disagreement about a TV, your employer is doing the employees a diservice if they will fire them so quickly over one incident.

Tim Moreira
04-23-2007, 12:53 AM
Nick,


your employer is doing the employees a diservice if they will fire them so quickly over one incident.

You bet ya...but that is the world we live in.. They are not concerned with the discervice to the employees.

Very sad but true.

Shane Pouch
04-23-2007, 07:03 AM
Do you do the same thing, a "visual" re inspection that your client could do? Then, you actually charge them for something that they could do?

I trust that you don’t try to talk them out of paying you to perform a visual whole-house inspection – something that they could do?

I can only speak for my experiences, and 8 to 9 tenths of the folks I run across most likely wouldn't know a repair if it jumped up and shook their hand. So, being a consultant, I provide them with the re-inspection service they’re after. Now, all these silly examples that have come out in this thread are just that, silly. Of course discretion is used when dealing with clients during re-inspections. Part of setting “the table of expectations” includes declining unreasonable requests.

Did any of you who are dreaming up all these silly "what if" scenarios ever think that maybe, just maybe, part of the re-inspection protocol includes talking a client out of wasting their money for the dumb thing??? Geeesh. Just because I say "I do re-inspections" doesn't automatically mean every time someone requests it. But you can be sure that if the scenario is right, and the expectations are understood, I will.



How is that serving your client? It sounds like someone extracting every last dollar from a client!

I’m a consultant. I get paid for my time – that’s it. And if I do a re-inspection, I will certainly collect a reasonable fee for my time. :)

Nick Ostrowski
04-23-2007, 09:11 AM
Shane, you say that you do some reinspections but not others. Since my scenarios are silly, please enlighten us with what reinspection requests you will accept and which ones you will turn down?

Eric Van De Ven
04-23-2007, 12:24 PM
I trust that you don’t try to talk them out of paying you to perform a visual whole-house inspection – something that they could do?

I can only speak for my experiences, and 8 to 9 tenths of the folks I run across most likely wouldn't know a repair if it jumped up and shook their hand. So, being a consultant, I provide them with the re-inspection service they’re after. Now, all these silly examples that have come out in this thread are just that, silly. Of course discretion is used when dealing with clients during re-inspections. Part of setting “the table of expectations” includes declining unreasonable requests.

Did any of you who are dreaming up all these silly "what if" scenarios ever think that maybe, just maybe, part of the re-inspection protocol includes talking a client out of wasting their money for the dumb thing??? Geeesh. Just because I say "I do re-inspections" doesn't automatically mean every time someone requests it. But you can be sure that if the scenario is right, and the expectations are understood, I will.


I’m a consultant. I get paid for my time – that’s it. And if I do a re-inspection, I will certainly collect a reasonable fee for my time. :)


Shane,
I want to make sure you don't think this is personal with you. It isn't.

That having been said, the scenarios I listed above were not dreamed up. They happened. They are fact. They happened to me and they can happen to others.

As for me taking money from individuals for doing a visual inspection that they could do, they couldn't do what I do. I have had electricians and engineers tell me, I wouldn't have seen that or thought about it. Glad I am paying you for it!

I had one guy who waited until I was almost through with my verbal report to tell me he was an electrician and knew where I was headed. (FPE panel, aluminum wire, every circuit double tapped). The bottom line was about $13,000.00 to rewire the home.

Most individuals have never heard of FPE panels, aluminum wiring, polybutene, FRT plywood and so on. That is why they are paying me.

As Nick asked, I too would be curious as to what you would or wouldn't inspect. Also,, why.

dick whitfield
04-23-2007, 06:02 PM
I'm doing a re-inspection for this guy tomorrow. How could I say no? Here is his note to me after the inspection.

"Mr. Whitfield,

Thank you for being so thorough with the inspection today (especially being
Easter Monday!). I appreciate you taking the time to explain in detail all
the issues (especially the safety issues) that should be addressed. Your
professionalism and personal care for your work is exemplary. I will
recommend you to all that may need your services. If by chance, you also do repair work or could recommend someone for repairs that takes as much pride in their work as you do l would appreciate your services or advice.

Thanks again,

Dale Hon****""

He knows nothing about a house. That is why he hired me...to look after him. Excuse me while I do my job. The main repair was a rotten floor under the bathtub that had also done damage to the floor joist. Who should he call...another inspector?

BTW...I did not do the repairs or recommend anyone.

dick whitfield
04-25-2007, 05:34 PM
I did my re-inspection and the repairs were terrible. The house closes Monday so I am not sure what they are going to do. Again he was most appreciative.
I will most likely do a third inspection if they buy the house.

Bob Stark
05-11-2007, 06:18 AM
For Nick O.:

Those who would believe that the "customer is always right", probably had very few.

12/12 roof in an ice storm? I believe that somewhere in/on the clients' table of expectations, one should probably find words like no/not/decline, and with or without explanation(s).

Will you walk the 12/12 in a storm? NO

Will you pull the panel screws while standing in 3 inches of water? PROBABLY NOT

Would you mind using my child's trampoline to get through that scuttle hole? I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE

In my very humble opinion, in this world we live in, the customer is VERY SIMPLY STATED, N O T A L W A Y S R I G H T ! ! ! ! Would any statement to the contrary not imply perfection? Let me hear from all HIs who have clients who are omnipotent. NOT those who BELIEVE they are, but those who ARE.

But, as one stated earlier, I remind you that the above is merely an opinion, and I am ALWAYS open to opposing viewpoints. Part of my "risk management" program !:D

Russel Ray
05-11-2007, 01:47 PM
You tell me exactly how you can "visually" tell a roof has been repaired properly with out being there to see the work being done. To use your phrase, I'll be blunt, you can't.
But that goes for brand new construction, as well. Unless you were there to see it being built, you cannot say that it was built properly. Same difference.

Re-inspections are a very lucrative part of my business since I charge for my time and knowledge.

Jerry McCarthy
05-12-2007, 01:03 PM
There is no arguing with folks who have their alleged minds made up and I gave that up last week. :rolleyes:
My goodness, if one’s own insurance carrier will not cover one for doing re-inspects what kind of message will it take to wake one up to reality? Personally I like home inspectors who do re-inspections of corrective work by others and then bless it as acceptable as this scenario has added a tidy sum to my bank account related to my legal EW work.

James Duffin
05-12-2007, 02:56 PM
What is the correct way to tell a previous client that you will not re-inspect the same house they entrusted to you two weeks earlier? The insurance thing is not going to cut it in my opnion. Too much like "I have already got your money so screw you...I don't need you no more!"

Jerry McCarthy
05-12-2007, 04:20 PM
James
Here is a section of California Real Estate Association’s (C.A.R.) contract that practically every RE agent working in our state uses:
CAR Residential Purchase Agreement – Form RPA-CA (revised 10/02
10. REPAIRS: Repairs shall be completed prior to final verification of condition unless otherwise agreed in writing. Repairs to be performed at Seller’s expense may be performed by Seller or through others, provided that the work complies with applicable Law, including government permit, inspection and approval requirements. Repairs shall be performed in a good, skillful manner with materials of quality and appearance comparable to existing materials. It is understood that exact restoration of appearance or cosmetic items following all Repairs may not be possible. Seller shall: (i) obtain receipts for Repairs performed by others; (ii) prepare a written statement indicating the Repairs performed by Seller and the date of such Repairs; and (iii) provide Copies of receipts and statements to Buyer prior to final verification of condition.

Here’s a copy of a common reinspection disclaimer that should be included in all contracts and also within the body of the report.
All are welcome to modify all or any part of the following as they wish:
Reinspections are only performed on items not accessible at the time of original inspection or that were unable to be inspected due to utilities not turned on. Should repairs be necessary we suggest appropriate persons perform them and that the work complies with applicable Law, including governmental permit(s), inspection(s), and approval requirements. Buyer should obtain from seller receipts for Repairs performed by others; a written statement indicating the date of Repairs performed by Seller and provide Copies of receipts and statements of seller prior to final verification of condition. (Ref: Residential Purchase Agreement Form RPA-CA, page 4 item 10.)

James Duffin
05-12-2007, 06:22 PM
All that sounds great except you have not helped your client. I agree with getting the receipts and documentation about the repairs but some folks still want/need your advice. Jerry's price for a re-isnpection is not the norm in my area. I'll stop by for a $100 for a hour or so. I'll stop by for free sometimes...can you believe that! :rolleyes:

Jeff Eastman
05-12-2007, 07:16 PM
You missed the point.

The point is about "gracefully" getting out of doing a re-inspection.

Re-inspections are a bad idea. Most seasoned veterans (that are the cream of the crop) say that, not just on this board. Listen to them, even if you don't get it what they say. JUST DO IT.

What I'm doing is pricing my client out of paying my fee and then I give them a reasonable viable alternative which makes sense to them and saves me a little "face".

Remember , the ultimate bottom line is protecting you and your family. So if my client thinks I'm providing a dis-service by not doing re-inspection, then so be it. I don't want the payouts and lawsuits that comes with them. You want to limit the number of bullets being shot at you and doing a re-inspection is a bullet I don't want to take.

And Remember, The Jerryies are waiting for you if screw up

Eric Barker
05-12-2007, 07:23 PM
"I'll stop by for a $100 for a hour or so. I'll stop by for free sometimes..."

Ditto here too!

Jerry Peck
05-12-2007, 07:34 PM
All that sounds great except you have not helped your client. I agree with getting the receipts and documentation about the repairs but some folks still want/need your advice.

You are totally missing Jeff's, and our (both West Coast and East Coast Jerry) point.

Doing a re-inspection *is not* doing your client a service or helping them, *and* it is doing them a disservice, as well as a disservice to yourself.

THEY are asking you to bless the repair, or tell them it is bad, in which case they will need to call you again to bless the new repair, or tell them it is bad, in which case they will need to call you again ...

*IF* THEY get the proper documentation and warranties from the "licensed contractors", THEY can hold those licensed contractors to the warranties and correct bad repairs.

As soon as the HI blesses the repair, the license contractor if (so to speak) *off the hook*.

Guess who is now *on the hook*? You get four guesses: A) you, B) you, C) you, D) all of the above.

All that you have not helped you client.

I sure hope you guys do it for *free*, otherwise, you are taking their money and giving them little, if anything, in return.

Russel said it most honestly: "Re-inspections are a very lucrative part of my business ... "

James Duffin
05-12-2007, 07:35 PM
Jeff...I am the cream of the crop and the Jerry's do not faze me. :cool:

Jerry Peck
05-12-2007, 08:31 PM
Jeff...I am the cream of the crop and the Jerry's do not faze me. :cool:

Wow!

Man, I hope to reach that level of self confidence and knowledge one day.

In the meantime, though, I will be struggling with knowing all that I do not know while I try to find even more that I do not yet know I do not know.

Bruce King
05-12-2007, 09:42 PM
James, where in NC are you located?
I do not see you listed in the NC directory for HI's yet.

Jack Feldmann
05-13-2007, 06:45 AM
How about when you find problems with a chimney? Chimney crown all cracked up, no rain cap or spark screen and you notice cracked flues down inside.

You go back, crown looks OK, and now there a nice new rain cap/screen secured to a the top of the flue tile. Can't get the rain cap off because they stripped the bolt head off when they installed it.

If this was the first part of my inspection, I would say that as far as I could tell, it looks OK. But in this case, I know I saw damage when I looked down the flue, but now I can't.

As far as telling a client I can't do something because of insurance goes, not a problem for me. Same thing as telling them that I can't give them a termite letter. "I'm not licensed to do that work".

They don't feel like signing a pre-inspection agreement? Sorry, my insurance company REQUIRES that I have it signed.

As far as not taking care of my client? My inspection is just one part of the home buying process. I do the inspection and give them the report. I do not set down with them and help them decide what they should ask for, or help negotiate the dollar amounts for the repiars. I don't even tell them what MUST be repaired/replaced or upgraded. I make observations an suggestions.

My involvement is just one step in a multi step process. You could carry the "customer service" banner too far. I guess if you wanted to be the foremost inspector known for the best bedside manner you could:
Do the inspection.
Determine what and who for repairs.
Select the repair person.
Go oversee the purchase of materials.
Supervise the repair process.
Issue your re-inspection report
Re-inspect the entire house again, just in case something changed since the original inspection. Find something you missed or that went down in the meantime. The start the process all over again.

You might also want to help them secure the best possible mortgage rates, direct them to the best homeowners insurance company, etc, etc etc.

Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. I draw mine at doing re-inspections. I drew that line because of my insurance company.

Eric Barker
05-13-2007, 07:50 AM
Well as one seasoned inspector, apparently in the minority, re-inspections are part of my service. I am completely confident in doing them and have never had a negative experience. As for the insurance - don't know who some of you are using but they're not covering you is a strange one. My carrier has no such restriction - and yes, I've checked with the underwriter.

But all of this basically boils down to business decisions that we each have to make. For those in my area that don't do re-inspections, pass my name on to your clients, I'd be happy to accommodate them.

Michael Thomas
05-13-2007, 09:20 AM
Eric,

What E&O carrier are you using?

Thanks

Jerry McCarthy
05-13-2007, 09:23 AM
Whenever I hear a home inspector say. “I’ve never been sued” I usually add under my breath, “yet.” In California the fat lady doesn’t sing until four years after the date of the inspection according to California Civil Code 7199, and until that specific time arrives all home inspectors are vulnerable to litigation. “Blessing” corrective work by others at best doubles the chances of litigation and unless an inspector thinks he/she can make up what the suit may cost them by charging for inspecting corrective work I fail to understand the motive for living so dangerously? Home inspectors are the purveyors of information, no more, no less, and at times much of that information can be of a negative nature. The chief problem is the value of their service is pathetically undervalued by not only the public, but by the inspectors themselves especially when you compare it to the value real estate agents provide and the amount of their reward. (BTW, I like Jack’s comments)

Kevin Luce
05-13-2007, 12:22 PM
How many times do we go back out and see that the "so called fix" was done wrong. A lot. If you were buying the house, would you want to have that person come back to see if that problem was fixed properly? I would think yes. Charge for you to come back is your choice.

Why are home inspectors sooo under valued? If we only did one inspection 5 days a week for the average price of $275.00 (the price is the low side of normal around here). That would be $71,500 a year. That is only one job per day for five days out of that week. If you averaged 6 jobs a week for $325.00 (the price is the high side of normal around here). That would be $101.400 a year. I don't know about you, but a one job per day for only five days a week is an easy week. 5 to 6 hours at the most to do the inspection and write up the report and 2 to 3 hours to do the miscellaneous things.

For a one person business, that is not bad. Of course, if you wanted to make more money per year, this business will allow you by offering add on services. Offering termite inspections in this area normally pays for my E&O insurance. :) And if we are that good (as a home inspector) then you should be able to charge what ever your want and the other home inspectors prices shouldn't matter.

Jerry, if you don't mind, what did you charge for a home inspection compared to other home inspectors in your area?

Jerry McCarthy
05-13-2007, 01:08 PM
Kevin
“How many times do we go back out and see that the "so called fix" was done wrong. A lot. If you were buying the house, would you want to have that person come back to see if that problem was fixed properly? I would think yes. Charge for you to come back is your choice.”See last Jerry P post, which, BTW, are my sentiments in toto exactement!!!

“Jerry, if you don't mind, what did you charge for a home inspection compared to other home inspectors in your area?”$375.00 to 2,000 sq. ft.; 425.00, 2000 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft.; over 3,000 sq. ft call for a quote. However, this was what I was charging when I retired in November of 1998. The average home inspection price in my area runs $600 per + in the mid peninsula (20 miles south of San Francisco) as the average home costs a million plus. Proof of the old real estate adage; location; location; location. In the HI profession it; disclosure, disclosure; disclosure. If you figured in the cost of living index from 1998 to 2007 the inspectors in my area should be charging around a thousand for an inspection. Kevin, the problem with the figures you quoted is they are gross sales and the take-home after expenses is way - way undervalued. Who do you suppose sets the average price in whatever area you practice in? Right, and that’s what makes me sad.

James Duffin
05-13-2007, 02:25 PM
Wow!

Man, I hope to reach that level of self confidence and knowledge one day.

In the meantime, though, I will be struggling with knowing all that I do not know while I try to find even more that I do not yet know I do not know.


I was trying to be funny....I learn new stuff every day.

Thom Walker
05-13-2007, 10:07 PM
“ Who do you suppose sets the average price in whatever area you practice in? Right, and that’s what makes me sad.

What makes me sad is that the bargain price guys can't figure out that they don't have to be that low. They could get to within $50 of me and would still get the price shoppers and the referrals from the desperate realtors. Then I could raise my prices even more, then they could, then I could........Eventually, we could have Inspections appropriately priced.

Jack Feldmann
05-14-2007, 04:01 AM
Kevin,
You are talking about gross income and not net. You need to do "The cost of business" that Brian has. If you already have, maybe you should review it.
JF

Eric Van De Ven
05-14-2007, 05:28 AM
Whenever I hear a home inspector say. “I’ve never been sued” I usually add under my breath, “yet.” In California the fat lady doesn’t sing until four years after the date of the inspection according to California Civil Code 7199, and until that specific time arrives all home inspectors are vulnerable to litigation. “Blessing” corrective work by others at best doubles the chances of litigation and unless an inspector thinks he/she can make up what the suit may cost them by charging for inspecting corrective work I fail to understand the motive for living so dangerously? Home inspectors are the purveyors of information, no more, no less, and at times much of that information can be of a negative nature. The chief problem is the value of their service is pathetically undervalued by not only the public, but by the inspectors themselves especially when you compare it to the value real estate agents provide and the amount of their reward. (BTW, I like Jack’s comments)


Jerry,

The answer is simple, greed! Or, what I like to call "The Vampire Syndrome".
Sucking every last dollar out of a Client while convincing them that you are helping them.



I know, I know........"we will have to agree to disagree"........

Dave Bush
05-14-2007, 06:00 AM
I do very few reinspections. I did one last week, Client lives in Denver and was moving to this area. Original inspection noted a double tapped 60 amp breaker with a #14 wire. I reinspected to ensure that the undersized wire was removed and a proper 15 amp breaker was installed. Buyer had a receipt from an electrician, but he wanted to make sure that what was repaired was what I had recommended.

Dave Bush
05-14-2007, 09:33 AM
Jeff, and how is that different from doing the initial inspection?

James Bohac
05-14-2007, 01:10 PM
I often do re-inspections. I beleave what you have to be carefull of is how you frase your findings. Never use all inclusive language such as "is" repaired, or "does not" leak. I allways state that things appear to have been repaired and I allway recommend monitoring and requisting receipts from contractors. I do not see re-inspections as anything other than determining if an effort or what type of effor has been made to correct problems found.

James

Eric Van De Ven
05-14-2007, 05:25 PM
I often do re-inspections. I believe what you have to be carefull of is how you phrase your findings. Never use all inclusive language such as "is" repaired, or "does not" leak. I always state that things appear to have been repaired and I always recommend monitoring and requesting receipts from contractors. I do not see re-inspections as anything other than determining if an effort or what type of effort has been made to correct problems found.

James

So, if your Client was there with you and you showed him everything you found wrong, couldn't he then go back and say "Everything appeared to be repaired"?

James Duffin
05-14-2007, 07:29 PM
I am a bit confused...

Say I do an inspection and find a rotten board under the rear patio door. The buyer (my client) calls and says the board has been replaced and he would like for me to come take a look to see if the repair had been done.

I tell him I do not do re-inspections and he needs to call another inspector. So he calls another inspector and they tell him it looks OK to them but since they did not see the original problem then they can't say if it was fixed or not. The second inspector is now the "last man in" but in his eyes he is the "first man in" so to cover his butt he will find a new problem to be repaired so he will not be the latest "last man in". This could go on forever until the poor buyer finds an inspector who does re-inspections.

How does this scenario sound to you guys? Is this a normal day for the folks who don't do re-inspections?

Eric Van De Ven
05-15-2007, 05:09 AM
I am a bit confused...

Say I do an inspection and find a rotten board under the rear patio door. The buyer (my client) calls and says the board has been replaced and he would like for me to come take a look to see if the repair had been done.

I tell him I do not do re-inspections and he needs to call another inspector. So he calls another inspector and they tell him it looks OK to them but since they did not see the original problem then they can't say if it was fixed or not. The second inspector is now the "last man in" but in his eyes he is the "first man in" so to cover his butt he will find a new problem to be repaired so he will not be the latest "last man in". This could go on forever until the poor buyer finds an inspector who does re-inspections.

How does this scenario sound to you guys? Is this a normal day for the folks who don't do re-inspections?

Jim,
Using your scenario, you would first have to be a little bit more specific as to what you found. By that I mean, was it just one board or, is there a possibility of more damage beneath.

Here in South Florida, most homes are on concrete slabs so that issue doesn't come up. Except, for the occasional two-story home that is wood frame on the second story. Now we can begin.

Report: Damaged wood observed under master bedroom sliding glass door with the possibility of damaged sub-floor and framing.

Now, if someone comes in and replaces "one board" and fails to address any other damage, you couldn't see it, nor, as I would explain to my Client, could anyone else. I would instruct my Client to have an invoice stating that either there was no damage beneath the rotted board or that there was and it was repaired, preferably with pictures to prove it.

In most cases here, I recommend that my Clients take any money that they may get for repairs and have their own contractors do the work under their watchful eye. The way the market is now, most deals are "as is" with right to inspect. The Sellers are starting to have to make repairs again as the market is soft.

Speaking of re-inspections, I inspected a home two weeks ago. It is the one in the electric section here with the faux painted panel cover. The house had many electrical problems. Triple lugging at the main fuse, under serviced, and someone had taken out the fuses in the interior panel and slapped in the guts from a Square D breaker panel and then screwed the panel cover to the wall.

An "electrician" went out and did the repairs. My Clients attorney called me to go out and re-inspect. I told him I didn't and didn't need to. He asked why? I told him to send me the invoice which he did.

The first thing that was missing from the invoice was the permit fee. Here in South Florida, according to the building code, there are only a few things exempt from permitting.

From the South Florida Building Code:
105.1 Required.

Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.



The only items exempt from a permit are:

105.2 Work exempt from permit.

Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code. Permits shall not be required for the following:


Gas:

1. Portable heating appliance.

2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe.


Mechanical:

1. Portable heating appliance.

2. Portable ventilation equipment.

3. Portable cooling unit.

4. Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code.

5. Replacement of any part which does not alter its approval or make it unsafe.

6. Portable evaporative cooler.

7. Self-contained refrigeration system containing 10 pounds (4.54 kg) or less of refrigerant and actuated by motors of 1 horsepower (746 W) or less.

8. The installation, replacement, removal or metering of any load management control device.


Plumbing:

1. The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe provided, however, that if any concealed trap, drain pipe, water, soil, waste or vent pipe becomes defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with new material, such work shall be considered as new work and a permit shall be obtained and inspection made as provided in this code.

2. The clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures, and the removal and reinstallation of water closets, provided such repairs do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures.


105.2.1 Emergency repairs.

Where equipment replacements and repairs must be performed in an emergency situation, the permit application shall be submitted within the next working business day to the building official.


105.2.2 Minor repairs.

Ordinary minor repairs may be made with the approval of the building official without a permit, provided the repairs do not include the cutting away of any wall, partition or portion thereof, the removal or cutting of any structural beam or load-bearing support, or the removal or change of any required means of egress, or rearrangement of parts of a structure affecting the egress requirements; additionally, ordinary minor repairs shall not include addition to, alteration of, replacement or relocation of any standpipe, water supply, sewer, drainage, drain leader, gas, soil, waste, vent or similar piping, electric wiring systems or mechanical equipment or other work affecting public health or general safety, and such repairs shall not violate any of the provisions of the technical codes.

That is because no permit was pulled. The work that was done was a service change, new lines and correction of everything else I found wrong. For the panel that had the fuses replaced with breakers, the "electrician" drilled four new holes in the cover and bolted it on. All is well!

Not according to Square D!
If you ever encounter this, you may copy the following:

Good Afternoon, Mr. Van De Ven,

The Square D QO and Homeline loadcenters are marketed, and submitted to UL, as
an interior factory installed into the enclosure. Using a QO130M200 as an
example, the interior's label will state "Cat. No. QO130M200" and "Use in Box:
BX30C". Further, the box label located on the enclosure will state "See
panelboard interior for Catalog No." and "Box Cat. No. BX30C". This same label
will also call out the appropriate cover to be used with the specific
interior/enclosure. In this example, the box label would also state "Use Cover
Cat. No. QOC30US or QOC30UF". These statement tie the appropriate
interior/enclosure/cover together as they are submitted to, tested and listed by
UL. Therefore, an installation that does not have the correct components mated
to each other would not be compliant with the UL listing.

Further comments on the use of the cover installed as you have noted:
1. The panels are short circuit tested with the cover installed, with the
factory provided screws, through the factory provided holes, mounted to the
appropriate enclosure. Any other means of installation would not ensure the
integrity of the cover if subjected to a short circuit.
2. I would doubt that they would be fortunate enough to have the covers
deadfront seat down on the breakers snug enough to not allow for gaps. If this
assumption is correct, then you would have an unsafe condition if something
could penetrate between the interior trim and the interior.

I hope that this info can be of assistance to you, Eric. Let me know if you need
anything further.


Regards,
Rick Snapp
Product Technical Support Group

The point is, I didn't have to do a re-inspection. Just reading the invoice I knew that the work wasn't done properly or permitted.
The attorney put $5,000.00 in an escrow account so the Client can now get a qualified electrician to make the repairs.

By the way, my Client called and thanked me for the job and appreciated the fact that I didn't charge them for a service they did not need, the re-inspection. Some other inspector was going to do it for $150.00.

Dom D'Agostino
05-15-2007, 07:53 AM
...my Client called and thanked me for the job and appreciated the fact that I didn't charge them for a service they did not need, the re-inspection.


But you DID provide the service. The service just didn't require a trip to the property.

Your review of the invoice and discussion with the interested parties involving the details of the "repair", constitute a re-inspection of sorts.

I know you cringe at the thought, but you re-inspected the work for them, found it was sub-standard, and advised them of such. Just because it was "free of charge", doesn't change the outcome. I'd do the same thing, you're clearly interested in helping your client.

Dom.

Eric Van De Ven
05-15-2007, 08:07 AM
But you DID provide the service. The service just didn't require a trip to the property.

Your review of the invoice and discussion with the interested parties involving the details of the "repair", constitute a re-inspection of sorts.

I know you cringe at the thought, but you re-inspected the work for them, found it was sub-standard, and advised them of such. Just because it was "free of charge", doesn't change the outcome. I'd do the same thing, you're clearly interested in helping your client.

Dom.

Actually Dom,
All I did was ask one question, Was a permit pulled? The fact that one wasn't indicates that the work is probably sub standard. I mean if you can't even do the first thing right,the simplest thing, how can anyone with half a brain assume that anything thereafter will be done right?

I guess if you wanted to split hairs, I may have done a re-inspection, sorta kinda, but here, all I have to tell my Clients to do, which I do, is ask the simple question, was a permit pulled? After that question is answered, I am not really needed any longer. If a permit was pulled and everything was inspected and signed off on, everything has gone as it should. If no permit was pulled, now there will be problems and I am more than glad to help them solve those.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't throw my Clients under the bus if they ask for a re-inspection. I, as one of our famed posters would say, "educate" them on how to solve their problems. Many have thanked me for it.

Dom D'Agostino
05-15-2007, 09:13 AM
I agree Eric. I wasn't trying to bust your chops about it, a consultation concerning repairs can help clients avoid headaches.



If a permit was pulled and everything was inspected and signed off on, everything has gone as it should.


Not so fast; as is the case with new construction, just because a Permit is pulled, and inspections are signed off, doesn't mean too much. I'm sure you've seen that on job sites many, many times.

That's one reason clients should seek "someone" to verify repairs, for the same reasons we tell them to hire us to inspect their newly constructed house.

Dom.

Eric Van De Ven
05-15-2007, 01:04 PM
I agree Eric. I wasn't trying to bust your chops about it, a consultation concerning repairs can help clients avoid headaches.





Not so fast; as is the case with new construction, just because a Permit is pulled, and inspections are signed off, doesn't mean too much. I'm sure you've seen that on job sites many, many times.

That's one reason clients should seek "someone" to verify repairs, for the same reasons we tell them to hire us to inspect their newly constructed house.

Dom.

If a permit was pulled and everything was inspected and signed off on, everything has gone as it should. I should have said "In a perfect world"!:D

Jerry Peck
05-15-2007, 05:36 PM
From the South Florida Building Code:

Er ... ummmm ... You mean "The Florida Building Code", right? :D

Eric Van De Ven
05-15-2007, 06:37 PM
From the South Florida Building Code:

Er ... ummmm ... You mean "The Florida Building Code", right? :D

:p :p :p :D

James Jackson
05-22-2007, 09:46 AM
I guess there's not many of you guys doing FHA & HUD inspections out there. Re-inspections are my bread & butter!. With FHA & HUD no other inspector an re-inspect except the original inspector. The fees are the same since it is simply another inspection. Regarding whether the work was done properly or not leaves another question. FHA & HUD simply ask was the roof repaired or replaced (since you made the call). There is no liability as to the workmanship or if it was done with permits. If you feel that it was not done properly...call it out! There will be a 3rd inspection fee involved.

Electrical panels seem to have more problems than the roofs.

Mo inspections mean mo money!

Jerry Peck
05-22-2007, 05:37 PM
(bold in the quote below is mine)

I guess there's not many of you guys doing FHA & HUD inspections out there. Re-inspections are my bread & butter!. With FHA & HUD no other inspector an re-inspect except the original inspector. The fees are the same since it is simply another inspection. Regarding whether the work was done properly or not leaves another question. FHA & HUD simply ask was the roof repaired or replaced (since you made the call). There is no liability as to the workmanship or if it was done with permits. If you feel that it was not done properly...call it out! There will be a 3rd inspection fee involved.

Electrical panels seem to have more problems than the roofs.

Mo inspections mean mo money!

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are opening yourself up to the same liability as every other inspector, unless you ALWAYS say 'no', then it gets into something which rings horribly ugly in your post - every re-inspection is more money.

Seems to me (to *me*) to be more of a *I'll do as many re-inspections as I can, 'cause it makes more money, and that's what I'm in this for.*

Do you do mold is gold inspections too? Just wondering.

Eric Van De Ven
05-25-2007, 02:17 PM
(bold in the quote below is mine)


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are opening yourself up to the same liability as every other inspector, unless you ALWAYS say 'no', then it gets into something which rings horribly ugly in your post - every re-inspection is more money.

Seems to me (to *me*) to be more of a *I'll do as many re-inspections as I can, 'cause it makes more money, and that's what I'm in this for.*

Do you do mold is gold inspections too? Just wondering.

Answers to "ALL" yoour questions can be found here Jerry:
Florida Home Inspections by Castrillo Home Service (http://www.castrillohomeservice.com/Menu)

Nick Ostrowski
05-25-2007, 10:45 PM
James said.........."What is the correct way to tell a previous client that you will not re-inspect the same house they entrusted to you two weeks earlier? The insurance thing is not going to cut it in my opnion. Too much like 'I have already got your money so screw you...I don't need you no more!' "

James, if you as an inspector carry E&O and your carrier does not extend coverage for reinspects, I don't understand how you feel that is not a valid stance for turning down reinspect requests. If you want to do them, then have at it. While all of us should have our client's best interests at heart, we also have to think about ourselves and the businesses we have worked hard to build. Some E&O carriers and their employees tell us it a bad idea. Bob Pearson with Allen Insurance told us during a "Limiting Your Liability" seminar at a NAHI national convention that reinspects are a bad idea.

Yes, there are unscrupulous contractors and people who do not know how to properly repair something. But, we can't save everybody from poor workmanship. If repairs were completed properly and in a professional manner, the individuals who performed the work should have no problem putting everything in writing and backing up their work. If they can't do that, then the repairs should be considered suspect. A reinspect does not change this.

Kevin Luce
05-26-2007, 06:26 AM
I inspected a house that had some big problems. The buyers backed out of the deal and three months later, another couple called me up wanting me to inspect the same house. When I got there, the seller fixed some of the problems I noted from the first inspection. I would have had a problem informing the second buyers that I could not inspect those items fixed because I didn't want the liability.

Nick Ostrowski
05-26-2007, 06:58 AM
Kevin, I turned down an inspection request last year for the very reason you just stated. It was a Philly rehab and the quality of the work I saw during the inspection was atrocious. The way I looked at it, I already knew enough about the quality of the work done the first time around to feel comfortable putting my blessing on it for a 2nd inspection even if it appeared OK. In short, I had no confidence based on what I saw to think the seller was going to fix things the right way.

Not saying either of us was right or wrong Kevin but everybody has their own comfort level when it comes to issues like these.

Jerry McCarthy
05-26-2007, 09:08 AM
There seems to be far more lemmings out there looking for a cliff then I ever suspected. Also, why the worry about saying, “I don’t do reinspections?” I would tell those folks to take a good look at the real estate contracts the local agents are using as most cover the area of repairs rather well.

Of course there’s lots of agents who are not familiar with many details in their own contracts except for the part that quotes a 6% commission. There are also plenty of bottom feeding inspectors who consistently violate their own association’s code of ethics and SOPs and don’t know the difference between a king stud and a jack rafter. However, if every home was perfectly built and all repairs and additions where professionally performed where would we be?

Kevin Luce
05-26-2007, 09:18 AM
Changing the subject a little. I got a call from a buyer that I've done two inspections for in the last month. He wants me to do another inspection for a house he is looking for and guess who the seller is: His Realtor! His Realtor is the seller, the sellers agent and the buyers agent. I don't know what kind of agreement they have :confused: but on the surface, it looks messed up. First time I've seen this.

James Jackson
06-21-2007, 08:39 PM
(bold in the quote below is mine)


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are opening yourself up to the same liability as every other inspector, unless you ALWAYS say 'no', then it gets into something which rings horribly ugly in your post - every re-inspection is more money.

Seems to me (to *me*) to be more of a *I'll do as many re-inspections as I can, 'cause it makes more money, and that's what I'm in this for.*

Do you do mold is gold inspections too? Just wondering.

Absolutely...even in water damaged cars!

Yes I'm in business to make money, aren't you? Our step in the door price on a typical home inspection up to 2000 SF is $725 (not including mold) & yours?

Actually I do Thermography, Forensic Building Investigations, Luxury Homes 5 - 30K SF, Historical homes, 1st time home buyers, condos, Mold, Water Intrusion, HUD, FHA, Public housing, Section 8, HUD REAC, HECM, Short Sale, Home Warrantee, Home Maintenance, Pre- Purchase, New construction, Insurance, Commercial, Phase I & II, REAC consulting/training, business coaching for inspectors, Teach (thermography, mold, HUD/FHA, New construction, Virtual Classes, EIFS, pool, seawalls, Realtors, and conferences) I sub out yachts, airplanes, termite, radon, lead, asbestos, elevator, and motorcoaches - each is a revenue source.


The bottom line is every business has risks. Where do you choose to entend or limit your risks? I choose to not drive a piece of crap & leak oil on a beatiful new driveway (risk & liability), I choose to "farm out" things I'm not qualified to do but I make $ off the subs. I choose to work 12 years by relationship marketing & never visit a Realtors office or print anything more than a business card, yet consistantly earn a large 6 figure income as a single inspector. I choose to run my business as what it is...a business which makes business decisions daily (which involve risks).

This is a VERY LARGE DEAD HORSE & this boy ain't kickin it no mo.

If you're ever at a convention where I'm teaching, drop by or attend one of my seminars. Your welcome to tune in to my radio show each 3rd sat from 9am - 10am at WKAT - South Florida's Christian Talk (http://www.1360wkat.com/) .


Reinspections is a foolish subject matter...same as religion & politics - all opinions & all are right (in the person giving the opinion eyes).

Later,

Florida Home Inspections by Castrillo Home Service (http://www.MoldTruth.com)

James Duffin
06-21-2007, 08:57 PM
James....

You are amazing as are all James! :p

Matt Fellman
06-21-2007, 10:48 PM
WOW! What a thread..... I honestly just read the whole thing because it's a topic that I deal with almost daily.

A couple funny things struck me....

Whomever asked the question 'why do insurance refuse coverage anyway?' definitely gets the silly question award. Why do insurance companies do anything? $$$$$$$$$$$ Obviously, they've paid out a disproportionate amount on re-inspections.

I find it funny that someone can infer that since they've never been burned doing something means they never will. Even better, they tell others that they never will either.

It's clear that the hardliners are set in their ways and that is the great thing about running a business in this country. You can do so as you please. At least until a lawyer gets a hold of you.

The fact is at the end of the day a re-inspection is higher liability. You can tell 'I've been doing it for 10,000 years' stories all you like but the statistics are unavoidable.... remember that whole insurance company thing?

The good news for most of you is that you're competent, experienced inspectors and the chances of you as an individual getting burned are relatively low.

With all of this being said I still do some re-inspections but it has to be under a certain set of circumstances. Of course I club my buyer over the head with all the disclaimers and clearly tell them just what I'm able to do and not do. I think they are still okay for checking for a performanced based item in an crawl space or attic or somewhere a buyer or agent isn't going to go (has the heating duct been strapped back in place? Are the wood scraps picked up?, etc.) Unfortunately, in my area re-inspections are an industry standard and I have to do some. I'd rather not but I just can't afford to stick out and be perceived as the one grumpy company.

My final thought would be for anyone who is still doing them, realize the dangers and act accordingly.

BTW.... I own a multi-inspector company and do about 1500 inspection per year. So, you could say my statistics are a bit concentrated. We've had two claims over the last 5 years that couldn't be settled prior to going to court and both were a direct result of a re-inspection.

Eric Van De Ven
06-22-2007, 04:33 AM
I choose to "farm out" things I'm not qualified to do but I make $ off the subs.

You do realize that you are responsible for their work, don't you?

Jerry Peck
06-22-2007, 07:51 AM
You do realize that you are responsible for their work, don't you?

Eric,

Ever heard the phrase 'Don't tug on Superman's cape. Don't spit into the wind. Don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. ... ? (Jim Croce)

I think that was Superman himself talking there. :D

James Jackson
06-22-2007, 09:17 AM
The word "disclosure" comes to mind as does "too many cooks in the kitchen-spoil the food" (not quoted verbatim but I'm sure I'll be corrected as I have been already)

At the sake of being redundant (repetative) ... the dead horse has left the building.

If you care to speak more on this subject or more call me direct at 1-866-899-MOLD (6653)

I'll be spending valuable time marketing & making $ rather than quoting song lyrics & responding to further blogs on a never ending subject matter.

P.S. Google Earth is a Great tool for roof inspections

Jerry McCarthy
06-22-2007, 10:42 AM
This thread’s subject is both old and long and without reading all of the posts I’ll say that Messieurs. Van De Ven, Greenwalt, and Feldmann have it right and Jerry Peck has it absolutely right.

I pity those that would argue against such sound reasoning, but then again its inspectors like these that keep a steady flow of income into my bank account.

If one’s E&O policy doesn’t cover such absurdity isn’t that a clue that you may be swimming in shark infested waters? Nah…………. obviously not. My attorney clients call them “chummers.”

Eric Van De Ven
06-22-2007, 03:10 PM
Eric,

Ever heard the phrase 'Don't tug on Superman's cape. Don't spit into the wind. Don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. ... ? (Jim Croce)

I think that was Superman himself talking there. :D

Yes, Jerry, I have.

Here is what the attorneys are going to be singing......

I found an empty house in my neighborhood,
I knew that we shouldn't but I thought we could.
Knew it wouldn't be hard to slide into the backyard,
Called all my friends and slipped a hundred to the guard.
We turned on the radio and had a party on the patio.

Betty's in the sauna and she's getting kind of hot,
Mary's in the icebox wishin' she was not.
Connie's in the whirlpool, Jimmy's tryin' to be cool,
Libby's in the bushes 'cause she's nobody's fool.
We turned the lights down low and had a party on the patio.

Heard the cops are coming so we tried to jump the fence,
Mary didn't make it and we haven't seen her since.
Connie had another drink, Jimmy simply couldn't think,
Billy G. was passed out underneath the sink.
But everybody's gonna show for another party on the patio.

ZZ Top...Party on the Patio:)


The word "disclosure" comes to mind as does "too many cooks in the kitchen-spoil the food" (not quoted verbatim but I'm sure I'll be corrected as I have been already)

The phrase "Contractor and sub-contractor relationship" comes to mind. You may want to ask your attorney or E & O carrier about that.

Russel Ray
06-22-2007, 08:02 PM
THEY are asking you to bless the repair, or tell them it is bad, in which case they will need to call you again to bless the new repair, or tell them it is bad, in which case they will need to call you again ...

*IF* THEY get the proper documentation and warranties from the "licensed contractors", THEY can hold those licensed contractors to the warranties and correct bad repairs.
But if some newbie licensed contractor did the repair, and it's wrong, or the seller said the repairs were done but they "cannot find the receipt right now," and the repairs actually were not done, who's going to tell my Client that the repairs were not done right, or were not done at all? I don't think it's going to be the seller or either of the two Realtors. So that leaves me, and I'm only too happy to continue to HELP my Clients hours, days, weeks, months, and years after the inspection. It's the right thing to do. I'd rather my Clients know now rather than in six months when the roof leaks and they lose the last known color picture of their wise ol' grandmother. At that point, it's too late, notwithstanding who did the work, receipts, etc.

Russel Ray
06-22-2007, 08:07 PM
Russel said it most honestly: "Re-inspections are a very lucrative part of my business ... "
My wise ol' grandmother taught me to be honest. She said that if I was always honest, I wouldn't have to remember whom I lied to. She was right. Honesty is such a breeze.