As Sergeant Joe Friday said, only the facts!

Does anyone know what is going on in NC as far as their licensing law. A person from NC that knows first hand would be great.

From what I have heard it looks like NC is going off the deep end and is limiting what an inspector can report on.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

Are inspection referrals from past clients important to you?
If so, click here to get even more referrals!

To make a very long story long, here is part of the current rule:

(d) Written reports required by this rule for pre-purchase home inspections of three or more systems shall include a
separate section labeled “Summary” that includes any system or component that:

(1) does not function as intended or adversely affects the habitability of the dwelling; or

(2) appears to warrant further investigation by a specialist or requires subsequent observation.

This summary shall not contain recommendations for routine upkeep of a system or component to keep it in proper
functioning condition or recommendations to upgrade or enhance the function, efficiency, or safety of the home. This
summary shall contain the following statements:

“This summary is not the entire report. The complete report may include
additional information of concern to the client. It is recommended that the client read the complete report.”

----------------------------------------------------

This is now all being changed somewhat and interpretations vary of the current and the proposed version. The proposed version is actually out for more work now due to major complaints involving reporting safety issues.

Most inspectors thought that safety upgrade items could not be in the summary but in fact they could always be, we just could not recommend they actually be upgraded. ie. GFCI is broken and needs to be replaced, goes in summary since it is not an upgrade. No GFCI exists. (can't say to install one since it was not required when house was built) Just simply have to state the facts, not one present.

Now the next version is to be determined but the goal of NC is to only have the facts in the summary. The summary is not really a summary since it is not a rewrite of the report so they should call it something else really.

One of the issues with allowing safety item recommendations in the summary is that the source of the information is usually code based. Codes may vary across the state and inspectors knowledge of these codes varies also.

Furthermore, we are not allowed to do code inspections unless state certified to do so. No inspector should want to do code inspections since a small issue missed pertaining to a dimension involving the foundation or something could result in a bonafide repair quote of $50,000 to truly correct the actual minor issue to meet the code. Want to be that inspector?

I am involved somewhat with helping on this and hope my proposal is considered. I have been looking at the big picture around this industry since I started studying it 4 years ago and think I see the light finally. The industry needs updating and consistency is necessary if we expect the agents to ever learn the details about houses in most of our reports.

can a HI Report have 3 Identified / Listed Sections

- Report
- Report Summary
- Summary (as required by NC Legislation).

Does the Law suggest that you can not have multiple summarizations encompassing different elements of the building / structure?

__________________
Joseph P. Hagarty
Main Line Inspections, Inc.
http://www.householdinspector.com

highlighting with bold is mine)
Is it just me, or does the part in bold in (1) contradict the part in bold in the last paragraph?

Seems to me an easy way around that "shall not contain" "recommendations" is to do what I have always said before - do not "recommend" installing GFCI protection, instead, simply state "GFCI protection is missing at ... ".

Now you can put it in the summary, and, let the others worry about whether or not is should be, may be, is not allowed to be, or can be, 'in the summary. You, the HI, should not really care "when" GFCI protection was required where and a what point in time, just simply state that there is no GFCI protection installed (based on current nationally recognized standards), thus "GFCI protection is missing" at those locations.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
EastWestData (www.EastWestData.com )

What? The pro-licensing boot licker's here who tout government intervention into our profession now become pissy & whiny when that same government agency nullifies their sacred Standards of Practice, say it ain't so?

Get used to the stupidity, here in Florida we had inspectors supporting licensing without any standards.

It does suggest that, but it may not be an issue if an HI develops his own reporting method as long as the rule is substantially met. This is part of my proposal, to purposely divide certain issues in the summary so it is evident as to which ones are typically not addressed by sellers but are still important.

I agree about the contradiction, this is one reason for the overhaul in progress.

Jerry, I do not remember seeing your advice about not making the actual GFCI installation recomendation before, what is your reasoning on that?

It seems like a blank check for a clients atty. that could argue that the HI only mentioned something and was negligent in making it known to the homebuyer that it needed to be actually installed before occupying the house therefore allowing an injury or death to occur.

All defects should be addressed by the appropriate trade person, licensed or otherwise qualified to perform the repair and/or installation, ie; GFCI - Electrical contractor. Presumably, that contractor would than explain why the absence of the GFCI would / could be hazardous to the occupants well being and extended life. That is the long way around, but, I suppose that is what they (Realtors/government) want. Seems like they are trying to make it difficult for consumers to find out why something is a defect and therefore not demand that it be remedied. So much for protecting the consumer - just protect the commi$$ion. or am I reading it wrong?

It's all in the wording. Go back and re-read what I said.

If it is supposed to be there and it is not, it is "missing" ... right? ..., and, of course, "missing" items are written up ... right?

Not a "recommendation" but a "statement" - I.e., under the list of things which are wrong/bad/not-working/whatever-you-call-it and need to be corrected is: GFCI protection missing in bathrooms, kitchen, wherever. You are not "recommending" it be replaced, you are outright saying "install GFCI protection where missing".

It's all in how you word things.

True, all HIs can do is "recommend" ... as related to 'HIs cannot "require" anything be done or corrected, but ... HIs *can* state "the following items need to be done/corrected/replaced/whatever-you-want-to-call-it" and then list your items.

That's not a "recommendation", that's a "statement".

A lot of HIs state "I/we recommend the following" and then list their list, to me, that was never acceptable. I used 'the following are missing/broken/bad/not working and need to be ... '

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
EastWestData (www.EastWestData.com )

Jerry,

I see, that is how NC wants us to do it....

That way the agent can tell the buyer " the HI did not actually recommend anything so the seller does not have to address that one".

Bruce,

I don't see how you, or the agent, can get that out of "install GFCI protection where missing" and you've listed the "where missing" locations.

Either I'm not explaining it right, you're not understanding it right, or I'm not understanding what you are understanding, but ...

When you have a part of your report which states that you "recommend" this action - that's what the state is saying not to put into the summary.

However, nothing in there says you cannot put into the summary where you have a part of your report which states that 'such and such, and such, and this and that, and that, and this other thing "need to be done" as listed' - those items go into the summary.

Once in the summary, how can you or the agent say that the HI is not saying to do anything?

As I said before "It's all in the wording" you chose to use.

The state is telling HIs that you need to get some 'b*lls' and actually take a stand and make a statement instead of fluffing it off to a 3rd party through a "recommendation" or that dreaded 'further evaluation' thingy. The agents are hoping that is not going to happen, knowing that so many HIs feed at the agents trough.

I AM NOT saying that applies to 'YOU' as in 'you personally', but to 'you' as in 'you plural for NC HIs'. That's what I see in that law - it wants HIs to either take a stand or not bother putting it in the summary.

If it does not go in the summary, 'it's not actionable' as far as the agents are concerned, but, you can trust that 'it will be actionable' for an attorney should something be hidden in the report, not making it to the summary, and it causes a problem or becomes an expensive repair for the new owners.

Just my take on it.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
EastWestData (www.EastWestData.com )

Jerry, we are on the same page... except part of the NC requirements



NC does not allow any upgrade recommendations in the summary.
They allow us to make the statement "GFCI's missing" only with no recommendation for anything period in the summary. The body of the report can recommend anything we want to.


The next NC rule is slated (unless changed at next meeting) to have the words Repair: or Investigate:
in front of each summary item.

The agents and sellers will only have to attempt to address the "Repair:" items.



The problem with safety and upgrade recommendations is simply this:
NC has found the majority of inspectors to be incapable of producing a proper inspection and report. To ADD ON the responsibility of reporting ALL safety issues as well and NOT missing any will cause more legal issues, complaints and investigations than they already have. Note: don't even think NC is the only state with this problem, its in all states, just as with all professions.


BUT, our job and ethical responsibility is to at least report what we can based on our knowledge and put it in the summary since a summary is required and possibly the only part actually studied by the buyer.


The NC HI board is under the department of insurance.
Here is a quote from the website:

The North Carolina Home Inspector Licensure Board is chartered to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare - protect the public from being harmed by unqualified persons by regulating the use of the title "Licensed Home Inspector" and by providing for the licensure and regulation of those who perform home inspections for compensation.


Due to the presence of the word "safety" in this statement is one of the reasons the new rules are now being being tweaked. They just can't limit our safety reporting when they have promised the public the above statement.

The task now is to figure out how to do this and still allow some real estate to be sold while keeping the HI's out of court.

I have submitted a simple plan to NC and hope it gets included in the next round of decisions.

Bruce wrote: "NC does not allow any upgrade recommendations in the summary.
They allow us to make the statement "GFCI's missing" only with no recommendation for anything period in the summary. The body of the report can recommend anything we want to."
____________________________________________


What I would do is just that... make the statement, "Gfci's missing at___" But at the end of that statement, put in parentheses: (refer to page, 14, section II, paragraph a)

Now, when they get to 14, II, a (or whatever area you put it in)-- it would clearly state that this was a safety concern that I recommend upgrading to what we now know to be a safer means of protecting the occupants from the possibility of an electrical shock.

It doesen't say you cannot reference where to read more about what is in the summary...

rr

__________________
"If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?"
Richard Rushing, HCRI
Duncanville, Tx.

Not yet, at least not quite.

BINGO!

You state that all "missing" GFCI protection needs to be corrected. That's not a "recommendation", nor is it an "upgrade".

Wrong word to use.

There's your word to use NOW (and I don't seem to be able to get this across - *do not use the word* "recommendation" or "recommend") - "REPAIR" (I was using "needs to be corrected" which is the almost the same as "repair" - except that "needs to be corrected" includes "replace" and some will argue that "repair" does not include "replace").

Great, again, there is your word: "REPAIR"

You used those two words again.

I totally agree, so *do not* "recommend" anything, simply state it is in need of repair, i.e., "REPAIR: GFCI protection is missing at the following locations ... and needs to be REPAIRED."

See above.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
EastWestData (www.EastWestData.com )

I knew if I spent enough time on here I would find the almighty Jerry wrong sooner or later. (actually the second time)


The thread is about NC Jerry, we are not allowed at the current time to do what you are suggesting.

Show that to me.

So far, nothing you have posted prohibits you from doing what I've said.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
EastWestData (www.EastWestData.com )

Let me show you the different simple safety upgrade reporting methods and how they are currently allowed in the summary:


No GFCI's are present in the house and needs to be repaired.
(this is not ok, a recommendation was made)


No GFCI's are present in the house and should be evaluated by electrician. (this is not ok, a recommendation was made)


No GFCI's are present in the house and you should not live there until they have been installed.
(this is not ok, a recommendation was made)


No GFCI's are present in the house. (this is ok)


No GFCI's are present in the house, refer to the remainder of the report for more information.
(this may or may not be ok, they can decide either way because a recomendation was made to go look at a recommendation)