Thread: 2009 TREC SOP Commentary

Mike,

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Mike Boyett

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

So Mike

Since you appear to be a we bit involved.

What do you think is coming down the road.

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

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

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

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

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

Just curious questions to the inner workings.

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

REDUCE the risk

Cannot be expected to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hmmmm, that is all I will say about that.

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

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

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

Ted.

What type of outer covering and what type of insulation?

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

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

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

Uh-uh. No mas, Senor Ted.

Originally Posted by Richard Stanley

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

Uh-uh. No mas, Senor Ted.

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

How many others here in Texas do not?

Originally Posted by Richard Stanley

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

Uh-uh. No mas, Senor Ted.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

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

How many others here in Texas do not?

Ted:

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

Ted:

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

(iv) are not grounded, if
applicable;

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

Sorry

erase

erase

erase

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

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

Sometimes I just cannot control myself.

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

Ted: Agreed.

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

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ted.

What type of outer covering and what type of insulation?

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

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

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

Eric

Originally Posted by Eric Shuman

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

Eric

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

This still hasn't gone away. The "final" version is online at:
TREC - Inspector Standards of Practice Commentary Drafts - 11/2009

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

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

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

JB: I wholly support that motion.

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

JB: We do not, and I have.

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

JB: We are again in agreement on both counts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my thoughts folks.

Best Regards - Richard

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

RS: This has already come to pass.

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

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

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

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

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

RS: Again, true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is where it needs to begin.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

RS: This has already come to pass.

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

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

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

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

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

RS: Again, true.

AD: Good - hold that thought dearly!

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

That is where it needs to begin.

AD: Now is as good as any other time.

Originally Posted by Richard Soundy

AD: Now is as good as any other time.

RS: Where to proceed from here, is the question.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

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

That is where it needs to begin.

Or, more simply done, let everyone belong to the associations they already belong to and join together for SPECIFIC causes and instances, creating a super-non-association of individuals for a common goal.

Now isn't THAT a novel idea?