Thread: Star TREC

I'm wondering what it takes for this to become enough of an issue that it would even make it to TREC for one. Second, I'm guessing a TREC "inspector" went out to investigate and re-inspect and found the following?:

(Namesake withheld)

Agreed reprimand of professional inspector license, entered March 17, 2009; Agreed administrative penalty of $500, entered March 17, 2009 Inspector acted negligently or incompetently, in violation of §1102.301 by failing to report signs of rust in a dishwasher, in violation of 22 TAC §535.229(a)(2), and by failing to report screens in need of repair, in violation of 22 TAC §535.228.(e)(6).



Similar Threads:

• New TREC inspector Committee Secretary
• TREC disciplinary actions
• "Flip This House" Star Arrested For Fraud
• Plaintiffs claim homes poorly constructed, sue for repair costs - Merced Sun-Star
• Chimney fire damages home - Arizona Daily Star

I'm glad I live in Oregon - that's just nuts. I bet the state used more tax dollars or fees collected from inspectors to investigate this than it would take to just replace the screens and dishwasher.

All that aside, I have to think the inspector either ignored their client or resonded in a poor manner to allow it to escalate to what it did. In this profession it's an absolute must to just swallow your pride at times and do what it takes to make someone happy.... even when they're nuts.

A complaintant's draw against the Recovery Fund as a result of a court judgement is one way that assures a full investigation.

A written and signed complaint to TREC, even from a disinterested party, costs nothing to initiate, obviously the report and the property conditions spoke for themselves.

Originally Posted by Jake Guerrero

I'm wondering what it takes for this to become enough of an issue that it would even make it to TREC for one. Second, I'm guessing a TREC "inspector" went out to investigate and re-inspect and found the following?:

(Namesake withheld)

Agreed reprimand of professional inspector license, entered March 17, 2009; Agreed administrative penalty of $500, entered March 17, 2009 Inspector acted negligently or incompetently, in violation of §1102.301 by failing to report signs of rust in a dishwasher, in violation of 22 TAC §535.229(a)(2), and by failing to report screens in need of repair, in violation of 22 TAC §535.228.(e)(6).

Mr Brownlee got screwed! (Just highlighted the information above and POOF you have the name and even the address of the person) I would also have to guess that he ignored complaint calls from his client and that if he had just admitted to the problem and taken care of it then it would have gone away. Most inspectors who get into trouble do so by their own accord. You would not believe the number of inspectors who get into trouble because they did not return calls or just ignored the problem.

That goes to show how lubricious the TX standards are or have become. I'm not saying that I would not report copious amounts of rust a dishwasher or screens that were missing or torn, but for the state to require reporting on such items is just absurd.

I understand that the TREC advisory committee is really struggling right now with the new TREC home inspection standards, with the number of questions, complaints and the interpretation request that are pouring in.

Originally Posted by Jake Guerrero

I'm wondering what it takes for this to become enough of an issue that it would even make it to TREC for one. Second, I'm guessing a TREC "inspector" went out to investigate and re-inspect and found the following?:

(Namesake withheld)

Agreed reprimand of professional inspector license, entered March 17, 2009; Agreed administrative penalty of $500, entered March 17, 2009 Inspector acted negligently or incompetently, in violation of §1102.301 by failing to report signs of rust in a dishwasher, in violation of 22 TAC §535.229(a)(2), and by failing to report screens in need of repair, in violation of 22 TAC §535.228.(e)(6).

Pretty sad situation in life for it to have gone anywhere anyhow. Dishwasher , maybe I can see that. They did not open it??? The should have could have seen the rust with just a quick peek inside. As far as the screens go, seriously, sometimes just go way to far. No one can tell me that someone buying a home does not even take a look at the house because they hire someone else to do so.

How many here, even before you were a home inspector, would not have opened a dishwasher and peaked inside or when you were walking around the home for the tenth time, checking your possible new home out, would not have payed attention to the condition of the windows and by doing such not have seen the condition of the screens.

Right or wrong as the inspector may have been the buyers, for those 2 items, should have a a reverse ignorance charge slapped on them for not picking up on those items in investigating and viewing their new home.

The ignorance of humans has become such that they can actually get paid for those things. Agian, right or wrong as the home inspector may be, that ignorant crap is all a client could come up with against the home inspector. Kinda sounds like he did do his job on all the structural and major systems in the home. He probablyu mentioned or pointed out screens or window conditions when he did his walk around with the folks and did not mention a couple of the screens in his report. Piddly a** crap.

Like I say....the dishwasher , maybe. Personally I can not remember the last time a client did not grab the handle of a dishwasher and open it to look inside as you were going over the kitchen items and say "what about the dishwasher, does it work well, or is it ok, or is it one of those noisey ones or is it pretty quiet? (or what ever)"

What about those clients. This is all they can come up with. And why???

I would say that the clients must have tried other more major items that turned out to be bull and these items were all that someone else found to be true.

I do not know the circumstances but what a joke as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

That goes to show how lubricious the TX standards are or have become. I'm not saying that I would not report copious amounts of rust a dishwasher or screens that were missing or torn, but for the state to require reporting on such items is just absurd.

I understand that the TREC advisory committee is really struggling right now with the new TREC home inspection standards and the questions, complaints and the interpretation request that are pouring in.

Screens and rusty dishwashers have always been in the standards. As I stated above, there must have been a whole lot more to the complaint.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Screens and rusty dishwashers have always been in the standards. As I stated above, there must have been a whole lot more to the complaint.

I rest my case! No reason at all they should be in the standards, but that is for another thread.

I have heard that the commentary project has come to a screeching halt.

"I mean, if you have to make a commentary to explain what the standards are wanting and what should be done; I think that is telling you that the standards have a major problem and need to go back to the drawing board."

I am no fan of the commentary .. or any of them, for that matter. Even the code commentaries. The codes should be self explanatory without having to rely on commentary. I say keep them simple. Ie; Inspect the foundation. The inspector should be getting the inspection protocol from education. If the SOP is going to tell him (her) how to do it, then there is no need for education. Of course, there has to be a standard by which the foundation is examined - so that all do them the same - otherwise, it is not a standard.- or it is a standard with exceptions - just like codes.
I shouldn't have started this - now I need a commentary to explain it...

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

I mean, if you have to make a commentary to explain what the standards are wanting and what should be done; I think that is telling you that the standards have a major problem and need to go back to the drawing board.

Scott,

The current SOP is approximately 18 pages long. The commentary itself is approaching that length now. That in itself speaks volumes and is right in line with what you have stated.

[quote=Richard Stanley;84129
I am no fan of the commentary .. or any of them, for that matter. Even the code commentaries. The codes should be self explanatory without having to rely on commentary. [/quote]

Richard,

Yes any code should be clearly written. However with the enormous size of the building codes there is always the possibility for some potential unclear parts. Additionally even though the meaning of a section is in the code it might potentially be in another more obscure part of the code. Commentaries are nice to have for the building codes but a commentary for an 18 page SOP is a little ridiculous!

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Like one of the board members got his panties in a wad and left the room like a school yard bully because he was not getting his way?

I mean, if you have to make a commentary to explain what the standards are wanting and what should be done; I think that is telling you that the standards have a major problem and need to go back to the drawing board.

Scout Scott: I do so wish you would pass that particular opinion along to the TREC and their inspector puppets.

Also heard ... as part of the 'dust up' ... that TREC legal (supposedly ... allegedly ... you know I have to CMA ) ... wanted to make the commentary a direct part of the SOP so that it could be used as enforcement over the HIs.

Originally Posted by Nolan Kienitz

Also heard ... as part of the 'dust up' ... that TREC legal (supposedly ... allegedly ... you know I have to CMA ) ... wanted to make the commentary a direct part of the SOP so that it could be used as enforcement over the HIs.

Nolan: I am not at all certain that it is true, but someone (and I won't mention the name) who should know, told me that the TREC enforcement bunch are a miserable, vindictive lot. Probably just a nasty rumor

What

We have standards we have to adhere to in Texas????

If I may, I would like to shed a little light on this topic from someone who was there (me).

Also heard ... as part of the 'dust up' ... that TREC legal (supposedly ... allegedly ... you know I have to CMA ) ... wanted to make the commentary a direct part of the SOP so that it could be used as enforcement over the HIs.

That's True, but it's the abridged version I published elsewhere in my meeting notes. There were 3 TREC attorneys at the meeting, one wanted to combine the SOP and Commentary for logistical reasons, primarily to ease the burden of getting the Commentary adopted as a Rule. She also felt having a separate SOP and Commentary would be confusing to the inspector. Not many, and certainly not the IAC, shared her view. Another TREC enforcement attorney mentioned that if the two were combined then it would be easier to use such a document for enforcement. You need to remember that TREC's position on a Commentary to date has been that the only way to have one would be to adopt it as a Rule and having two Rules essentially addressing the same thing doesn't sit well with them.

Like one of the board members got his panties in a wad and left the room like a school yard bully because he was not getting his way?

That's Not True. The IAC sub-committee chairman that was presenting the Commentary took strong opposition to the idea of combining the two documents and a long, maybe 1 hour, debate ensued over the merits of each approach. No one left the room, except for lunch. As far as anyone 'getting his panties in a wad', well if a heated debate qualifies as that then I suppose it can be characterized as such but it seems kind of an over-simplification to me. I'm not trying to take up for that or any other IAC member, Lord knows, I have serious issues with some of his technical proposals and ideas but I do want to set the record straight best I can as to what transpired at that meeting.

one wanted to combine the SOP and Commentary for logistical reasons

Bijansky?

Another TREC enforcement attorney mentioned that if the two were combined then it would be easier to use such a document for enforcement.

Meisel?

The IAC sub-committee chairman that was presenting the Commentary took strong opposition to the idea of combining the two documents

Wilcox?

I have serious issues with some of his technical proposals and ideas

Me too.

MB,

As always ... thanks for your clear observations and help in keeping (at least me) on track.

Sounds like the Texas inspectors SoP and potential Commentary will be the final nail in the coffin of logic ... except that there will be a decades long debate and discussion on which order the nails in the coffin are to be / are being / have been driven in to arrive at "which nail" will be "the last" nail in that coffin.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Sounds like the Texas inspectors SoP and potential Commentary will be the final nail in the coffin of logic ... except that there will be a decades long debate and discussion on which order the nails in the coffin are to be / are being / have been driven in to arrive at "which nail" will be "the last" nail in that coffin.

JP: You forgot to mention what types of nails are to be driven, i.e. size, shape, length, material, coating, et al., as well as the type of hammer or other driving device to be utilized; what style of coffin, which wood species, what size boards, what color finish, hinges, handles, lining, etc. ad infinitum.

This has been going on for as long as I can remember, will never cease, and will only become much, much worse as time goes on. As the government goes deeper and deeper into debt the attorneys they hire will become less and less skilled and the hubris-driven self-important inspectors who volunteer for the board positions will become more and more empowered.

The entire milieu will begin to ever more clearly appear as the fathomless cesspool that it is. The public, which consists of the morally blind with sub-100 IQs will not notice as they continue to inbreed themselves into the sheep that the Republicans so cherish.

I will move to a small European country.

Originally Posted by Mike Boyett

If I may, I would like to shed a little light on this topic from someone who was there (me).
That's True, but it's the abridged version I published elsewhere in my meeting notes. There were 3 TREC attorneys at the meeting, one wanted to combine the SOP and Commentary for logistical reasons, primarily to ease the burden of getting the Commentary adopted as a Rule. She also felt having a separate SOP and Commentary would be confusing to the inspector. Not many, and certainly not the IAC, shared her view. Another TREC enforcement attorney mentioned that if the two were combined then it would be easier to use such a document for enforcement. You need to remember that TREC's position on a Commentary to date has been that the only way to have one would be to adopt it as a Rule and having two Rules essentially addressing the same thing doesn't sit well with them.

That's Not True. The IAC sub-committee chairman that was presenting the Commentary took strong opposition to the idea of combining the two documents and a long, maybe 1 hour, debate ensued over the merits of each approach. No one left the room, except for lunch. As far as anyone 'getting his panties in a wad', well if a heated debate qualifies as that then I suppose it can be characterized as such but it seems kind of an over-simplification to me. I'm not trying to take up for that or any other IAC member, Lord knows, I have serious issues with some of his technical proposals and ideas but I do want to set the record straight best I can as to what transpired at that meeting.

As far as three attorney's and then an enforcement attorney presiding with, for or against anything at a meeting. I just absolutely do not get it. Maybe a couple of attornies reviewing matters at hand or the write up, who knows. The entire inspector ENFORCEMENT THING has gotten way out of control. It has been taken from sound advise for clients buying homes to law suits, enforcement, pages and pages of commentary for the new SOPs etc etc etc etc. Does not anyone see what is happening to this profession.

This is not a code inspection where commentaries are needed to explain garbled, vague code.

If you think the SOPs are that difficult to understand and a commentary is needed for enforcement then I guess the SOPs are a flop and should be discarded all together. What needs to happen instead of enforcement over inspectors is enforcement over some of their clients. Almost all inspectors do a pretty decnt job. Most inspectors concider themselves professionals.

I can guarantee you that all inspectors to not want to go to work everyday of their lives with the word legal action implanted into their brain stem. I for one never, and I mean never go to work thinking about TREC or a client coming after me with enforcement or lawyers.

I do not carry in my back pocket the SOPs or a phone number to TREC. Gentlemen, if you think it has not become so far from what it should be then you need to rethink it.

We have work history, schooling, cont ed, everyday experience, this baord and all of this is to find as many concerns for our clients. We should not live and die for the fact they we may miss a ripped screen that we are going to have to pay for. As far as I am concerned screens should not even be part of a home inspection. The buyers of a home have to take some leg of responcibilty for their actions of buying a home. The responcibility of individuals has become so lax that they have turned their responcibility on to someone else and the "we will make them pay" attitude. Hey TREC folks. Tone down, lighten up, get rid of half the lawyers. HAve a lawyer or 2 for review only that has nothing to do with any association to the Texas Reral Estate Commision but ones that actually may have REAL experience in home building or home inspection or actually took a basic home inspection course. I don't want to hear that their combined learned excellence has anything to do with an actual home inspection or even what it is all about. The absurdity of it is astounding. They are trying to figure wording on things they no nothing about themselves.

Gees. Did I just go off on a rant or what. The reality is I never think of TREC, lawyers, lawsuits, legal action or anything remotely related to it, ever.

Here is one for you. Why are home inspectors under the TEXAS Real Estate Commission anyway. We are constantly told and realtors are constantly told to keep our distance don't refer unless you have a list of a hundred for liabity etc etc etc etc. BUT THEN WE ARE BOTH LIcENSED UNDER TREC.

My God man. Go figure

the SOPs are a flop and should be discarded all together.

Ted: I am not a timid man and never cower or flinch, bu this recent tendency I seem to have to be in agreement with you, well to be honest, scares me a bit.

The reality is I never think of TREC, lawyers, lawsuits, legal action or anything remotely related to it, ever.

Ted: And, I hope you never have to. But the likelihood is that, at least someday, you will.

Why are home inspectors under the TEXAS Real Estate Commission anyway.

Ted: Honestly, it would not make any difference if we had our very own commission, just for inspectors. The profession itself was made up out of whole cloth by the brokers to more widely spread the liability accrued through the real estate sales transaction. A separate commission would only be populated by the self-aggrandizing, near sociopaths that sit on every other state board, and be supported by the attorneys who are jettisoned from the Office of the Attorney General.

Anyway, stop talking such sense. I might find that you are a reasonable person after all. What then, would I do with my pet prejudices regarding Cow Town?

A recommendation to move home inspectors away from TREC and over to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) was actually made to the state legislature by the Sunset Commission in 1991. When it came down to the 11th hour vote in the legislature however the measure had been stricken from the bill and inspectors stayed under the purview of TREC. The formation of the Inspector Committee in 1991 to advise TREC on inspection related matters was in many ways the bone that was thrown to the inspectors for having to stay under TREC.

When the Sunset Commission reviewed TREC again just a few years ago I personally was hoping to see that same recommendation surface again. Unfortunately, nothing in that regard was to be offered. In my opinion TDLR is a more appropriate state agency through which to regulate Home inspectors in Texas. This would once and for all eliminate that nagging potential for regulatory conflict of interests between inspectors and real estate agents.

Hey Phillip, welcome back. Where 'ya been?

I actually have not been away Jim. I still pop in from time to time to catch up on posts of interest. Just have not done much in the way of posting replies lately.