Thread: Free re-inspections - should I?

I'm putting the finishing touches on getting my business up and running, and one thing I'm considering offering to my clients is one (and only one) free reinspection. This is specifically geared towards my seller clients, since they'll hopefully use the information I give them to make necessary repairs to their property. That way I can issue an amended report for them once the work is done. Is this a good idea, or has anyone had bad experiences when they have offered these in the past? Thanks!
-John L. Duncan

Similar Threads:

• Free Outdoor Grills
• Pre-Listing Inspections
• Unfinished repairs 'desperate situation' - London Free Press
• Home inspections key to helping buyers make sound decision - Chicago Daily Southtown

Consider this John......if you are going to do reinspects and modify your report to reflect any work or repairs, you are essentially taking responsibility for the repairs........at no charge. If you are going to take on that level of liability, you should at least get paid for it, but that is your choice.

I don't know if you are going to be carying E&O insurance but if you do, you should check with your carrier regarding reinspects as some insurance providers will not cover you for reinspects.

Originally Posted by John Duncan

I'm putting the finishing touches on getting my business up and running, and one thing I'm considering offering to my clients is one (and only one) free reinspection. This is specifically geared towards my seller clients, since they'll hopefully use the information I give them to make necessary repairs to their property. That way I can issue an amended report for them once the work is done. Is this a good idea, or has anyone had bad experiences when they have offered these in the past? Thanks!
-John L. Duncan

I imagine you'll get a bunch of conflicting advice about re-inspections. One way of looking at it is that by passing judgement on repairs made, you are acting as a specialist (plumber, electrician, hvac tech) when you are in fact a generalist home inspector. If you have E&O insurance, re-inspections may not be covered.

You have to get up pretty early in the morning to beat Nick to the punch.

Originally Posted by John Duncan

I'm putting the finishing touches on getting my business up and running, and one thing I'm considering offering to my clients is one (and only one) free reinspection. This is specifically geared towards my seller clients, since they'll hopefully use the information I give them to make necessary repairs to their property. That way I can issue an amended report for them once the work is done. Is this a good idea, or has anyone had bad experiences when they have offered these in the past? Thanks!
-John L. Duncan

John: In a word: no. This is a can of worms that should remain forever closed. Open it, and you will soon find out why.

Re Inspections

Absolutely not in almost all instances. You did not do the work. Someone else did that is giving them some paper work stating so. Most of the time you can only see a portion of their work. You do not want to be giving anyone a stamp of approval on their work. Anything at all goes wrong in the future they are calling ypou first. Not the workman.

Charge for re inspect

Absolutely, if you absolutely must re inspect. The only thing a home inspector gets paid for is his time and nothing else. You spend time, they must spend money.

First: Like Mr. Ostrowski wrote, check with your insurance first. If your insurance will not cover re-inspections, I would think you would stop there. I have Allen Insurance and while they don't recommended it, they do cover re-inspections.

Second: If you are going to do re-inspections, make your contract clear on what it's limitations are. I have it down that the re-inspection is good up to the time of closing, the same standards apply as used during the original home inspection and I have the right to decline to do the re-inspection. I also put a value on the re-inspection so if I decided not to provide that service, they can only recover that amount (if it ever went in that directions).

I agree with some others here that the liability is higher then if you don't provide the service. But as discussed before, this is not the type of business you should be in if you don't know what you're doing and also worried about liability. While there are a number of home inspectors that have never been sued, I would think that the % would be very low.

For me, I charge $25 more per inspection for that service. If I only do 20 inspections per month, that is $500 more I made. Most of my jobs are 15 minutes or less and the % of clients that request a re-inspection is low. This also helps eliminate the home buyers that are looking for the best price only.

Just a note: I don't know how many new furnaces, roofs, air conditioners, water heaters, etc that were installed by contractors before the original home inspection. Installed/ repair before the original inspection or before the re-inspection, I just don't see the difference, we're still inspecting their work and some type of limitation is still there.

There are many that disagree with me on this subject and I feel that is great since this helps me stand out compared to the other home inspectors in this area.

I offer re-inspections, but at the original inspection fee and I do a new report.

Different day, things have changed.

Of course many decide not to go through with the reinspection and use that money towards something else.

rick

My reinspection fee is 75% of the original inspection fee. I require the original receipts for the repairs. I'm only looking at what I reported in the original report.

I discourage reinspections the best I can. If you reinspect a home you need to realize that; the last man in, last man out theory is in force.

I would also not recommend doing anything for free. Every single time I have discounted or done something to be nice it has come back to haunt me. I don't know why, but those persons who I have tried to help always expect more and more from you and are unrealistic about what a home inspection is and should be.

Also, do not amend the report! Do not change the report! I issue a letter that states what I looked at and what I found while looking at that item. I then attach the original receipts to the letter and instruct my client to contact the repair contractors if they have any questions or problems with their systems.

Adding to what I said above

A re inspect is nothing like an inspection

Work has been done that you (most of the time) cannot confirm due to the repairs being inside or behind a finished product. If it is an HVAC system all the work is internal. An evaporator coil, well, its inside, you are not going to pull the cabinet apart. A window leak where they pulled things apart and re flashed and re trimmed, cannot tell that either. Leak in roof do to a poorly done valley or flashing that they covered back up with new shingles. Cannot tell that either.

If a system is not working and now it is that is all you can tell them.

Like Scott says. I try to explain that the best I can to client and most opt out of the re inspect. The paper work in hand on most repairs will come with some kind of trade warranty. If something goes wrong in the future they will be calling the tradesman and not you.

This gets bantered back and forth all the time and most say.....Don't if possible. Charge if you do.....Put limitations and lengthly explanation with your re inspect if you do. To go back and look to see if the sellers put another 6 inches of insulation in an attic....well...yep they did now if you would be so kind as to pay me for my return trip.

Paper work and warranty on repairs is all your client really needs.

Thank you all for the excellent advice!
-John

Not having read this thread earlier, but thinking that, while all the information is well and good, but everyone is missing the main point, then ...

... Scott hits the main point squarely on the head!

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Also, do not amend the report! Do not change the report!

Let the original report stand, you issue an addendum which states what was addressed (but do not state it or imply as to what was "fixed", it may have been "addressed" but not "fixed"), then let that stand on its own ... provided you decide to do re-inspections.

Also, by doing a "new inspection" for a re-inspection it gives you a chance to pick up things not seen the first time around. Not seen for various reasons, storage moved, "repairs" corrected some things but made other things bad, different weather conditions, etc., *many* things can affect what you see and do not see on any given day.

Originally Posted by John Duncan

I'm putting the finishing touches on getting my business up and running, and one thing I'm considering offering to my clients is one (and only one) free reinspection. This is specifically geared towards my seller clients, since they'll hopefully use the information I give them to make necessary repairs to their property. That way I can issue an amended report for them once the work is done. Is this a good idea, or has anyone had bad experiences when they have offered these in the past? Thanks!
-John L. Duncan

If I can toss in my 2-cents...

Re-inspections for a buyer are bad enough, and I don't encourage them. In fact I discourage them by telling the client to get full documentation, including the warranty, from the contractor doing the work. There are some exceptions, like decks, where I might feel comfortable saying the work or fix looks OK, but I'm not going to bless anything where any parts remain hidden.

But, reading John's post, it seems he wants to issue an amended report for a seller to pass on to a future buyer, someone who hasn't read or signed an agreement, who may not understand the limitations of a home inspection, who may keep a pet lawyer in a cage, etc, etc. There, I would never go!

... Scott hits the main point squarely on the head!

JP: Disagreed.

Let the original report stand, you issue an addendum which states what was addressed (but do not state it or imply as to what was "fixed", it may have been "addressed" but not "fixed"), then let that stand on its own ... provided you decide to do re-inspections.

JP: Provided that you are desperate enough to do re-inspections. If so, get out of the business.

Also, by doing a "new inspection" for a re-inspection it gives you a chance to pick up things not seen the first time around. Not seen for various reasons, storage moved, "repairs" corrected some things but made other things bad, different weather conditions, etc., *many* things can affect what you see and do not see on any given day.

JP: But then, a new inspection is not a re-inspection, is it?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: But then, a new inspection is not a re-inspection, is it?

BINGO! We have a winner!

Which is why I stated what I did about that new inspection ...

So tomorrow I have a Re-Inspect scheduled. Out of state buyers not able to be present at the original inspection.

1930's home with 1" of compacted attic insulation and an obviously damaged power supply line to the garage.

It should only take 1 minute to walk back to the garage and check the wiring and 5 - 10 minutes to pop up in the attic and check the level of new insulation. No big deal really.

Now of course I do re-inspections on my own terms. When I am in the area, I usually don't charge. Outside of my "service area" I do charge any where from $50 to $100.

As far as a "new report"....I don't see the need for it. I choose to create an addendum to my original report instead. It has the same header page (home description, location, client info etc...) with a disclaimer indicating what I have re-checked and that it is limited and visual and no other area or item was included in the re-inspect. It usually takes 20 minutes to type it up and email it to the involved parties.

So far this method has worked out just fine. I would say that 95% of my re-inspections involve out of state buyers just wanting the obvious verified. The rest are little old ladies to fragile to get up in the attic or crawlspace to verify a repair.

I try my best to take good care of my clients...

Clint

Originally Posted by Clint White

So tomorrow I have a Re-Inspect scheduled. Out of state buyers not able to be present at the original inspection.

1930's home with 1" of compacted attic insulation and an obviously damaged power supply line to the garage.

It should only take 1 minute to walk back to the garage and check the wiring and 5 - 10 minutes to pop up in the attic and check the level of new insulation. No big deal really.

Now of course I do re-inspections on my own terms. When I am in the area, I usually don't charge. Outside of my "service area" I do charge any where from $50 to $100.

As far as a "new report"....I don't see the need for it. I choose to create an addendum to my original report instead. It has the same header page (home description, location, client info etc...) with a disclaimer indicating what I have re-checked and that it is limited and visual and no other area or item was included in the re-inspect. It usually takes 20 minutes to type it up and email it to the involved parties.

So far this method has worked out just fine. I would say that 95% of my re-inspections involve out of state buyers just wanting the obvious verified. The rest are little old ladies to fragile to get up in the attic or crawlspace to verify a repair.

I try my best to take good care of my clients...

Clint

Clint: Quite a clientèle you have there; newbies and grannies. In such a world I suppose that re-inspections of all types would be in order.

OK, I'll go a different way here.

Suppose Jerry Peck inspected a house and pointed out 'several' problems.
Now, Scott goes there a month later (after the seller has made every repair Jerry pointed out) and inspects the house for a different buyer.

Isn't Scott verifying repairs made by the seller?

What's the difference between Jerry re-inspecting repairs or Scott? They are the same repairs, same situation except Scott didn't see the original problem.

John's question referred to a sellers inspection. That type of an inspection is a tool for the seller to get their house ready to sell. If John prices the inspection correctly (higher than a buyers inspection because he figures he'll go back once and make changes to his report), then I see no problem.

That's how I market my pre-listing inspections; I was lucky enough to conduct one last Saturday that has a FPE panel (among other problems).
If I can't go back and verify a new panel was 'properly' installed to replace the FPE, then I shouldn't be in business.

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

OK, I'll go a different way here.

Suppose Jerry Peck inspected a house and pointed out 'several' problems.
Now, Scott goes there a month later (after the seller has made every repair Jerry pointed out) and inspects the house for a different buyer.

Isn't Scott verifying repairs made by the seller?

Nope, because Scott had no knowledge of what the conditions were previously.

What's the difference between Jerry re-inspecting repairs or Scott? They are the same repairs, same situation except Scott didn't see the original problem.

The difference is that I would have been privy to (would have known) what I saw and any re-inspection would have been based on that knowledge, while Scott would have not known there ad been a change to anything.

If I can't go back and verify a new panel was 'properly' installed to replace the FPE, then I shouldn't be in business.

I hope you do not use the word "properly" which you used there, hopefully you would say more like 'Yeppers, that crappy old FPE panel has been removed and a new GE (or whatever make) panel as been installed.'

Jerry, I guess I don't fully comprehend your thought process on this subject. You do a home inspection and report that double taps are present in the service electrical panel. The buyers fix the problem but you will not go back because you know the problem existed. The deal falls through and another family that is interested in the house has a home inspection. From what you are saying, it's fine for this other home inspector to inspect the service electrical panel because he isn't aware of the recent corrected problem (which was made by the current homeowner).

I just think that some are making this a bigger issue than it really is. Just like when digital cameras were starting to be used during home inspection; some home inspectors thought the liability was too high because we might include a picture of a problem we called out but yet miss another problem that was also in that same picture. There were even some home inspectors that thought that home inspectors that included pictures in the report was at risk of going to jail because that home inspector didn't have written permission from the seller.

Now thinking about it, I don't think I have read from anyone that they are getting sued from a re-inspection. Not saying it hasn't happen, I just never heard somebody talking or writing about it.

I too have never heard of an HI getting sued because of a reinspect. Not to say it hasn't happened, I've just never heard of it happening.

The only problem I ran into because of a reinspect was due to the half-assed repair a carpenter made to fix some termite damaged ceiling joists around a door frame in the basement. No lawsuit but a flat-out pain in the ass situation. I went to look at repairs in a couple areas of the house and as soon as I saw the repairs the carpenter made to the damaged ceiling joists, I shook my head and said "no good". I ended up having a couple phone conversations with the carpenter and in one of them, he admitted his normal way of fixing the damaged areas was the same way I described as my preferred method of repair. BUT........the sellers told him they had already spent enough money fixing things for the buyer and that they were only going to pay up to $XXX.XX for the repairs to the ceiling. Sooooo........he fixed them in a manner that was within their budget. It turned into a big headache because I had to butt heads with the "professional", spend unreimbursed time on the phone and writing a letter documenting my conversations with the carpenter, and recapping my conversations with the my client and their realtor.

I also did a reinspect for another client where an item of repair was a new flue liner in the chimney. You could see a new terra cotta liner sticking out of the top of the chimney from the ground but once I got up on the roof and looked down the chimney, they only installed one section of the terra cotta liner right at the top. The rest of the chimney interior was unlined.

I too have tried to bat away requests for reinspects whenever possible for many of the reasons mentioned above. But I have also seen enough instances where somebody was trying to put one over on my clients and shortchange them when it came to repairs that were agreed upon by both parties. So in the end, I think there is the need for reinspects on our part. Let's face it, if everything was done the way it was supposed to, we wouldn't need to inspect new construction houses either. And those homes come with warranties.

I guess my point here is that just because a "professional" did the work and provides paperwork does not mean it was done right.

Originally Posted by Kevin Luce

Jerry, I guess I don't fully comprehend your thought process on this subject. You do a home inspection and report that double taps are present in the service electrical panel. The buyers fix the problem but you will not go back because you know the problem existed. The deal falls through and another family that is interested in the house has a home inspection.

Kevin,

This is why you "don't fully comprehend" the thought process:

Let's say you do a home inspection and write up a roof leak at, say, the chimney, and a foundation concern (cracking) at one corner.

Seller addresses both and "corrects" both.

Okay, do you go back as the original home inspector and say 'Yep, both have been corrected.'? And *you know* they have been "corrected"? How?

Whereas the next inspector goes out just like you did, not knowing anything about it, and looking for everything as you did. That home inspector is not saying 'Yep, both have been corrected.', at most the second inspector has nothing to see and nothing to draw his attention to anything - just like the wall that now has a crack and you did not see ... because it was not there then.

When trying to think about things like this and only address the simplest of issues, you re deceiving yourself about what to do, you need to address this with not only the simplest issues (such as your multiple tap example) to the most complex and risky issues (such as my example of roof leaks and foundation).

Otherwise how would you explain it to your client: "I can do a re-inspection for simple issues but not the complex issues which are what would really bit you in the butt?" I doubt that would go over very well with your client, they would probably say something like: "Then don't bother doing a re-inspection." ... which is precisely what we are saying.

Unless you are willing to 'do it all' (and that would really put yourself and your client at risk and on the hook), we are saying 'don't do it, any of it', and 'have the seller provide permits, inspections, work orders, paid receipts, and WARRANTIES from the companies which did the work' - let THOSE THINGS and those companies back up what they said they did.

Let's go the roof leak example: You tell your client that it was repaired, only to have it leak at the next rain ... how are you going to explain to your client that you could not tell if it was done correctly, you could only tell 'something' had been done? That is when your client says 'But, *I* hired *YOU* to do a re-inspection and *YOU* said it was *DONE*, and ... *NOW* ... *YOU* are telling me *YOU* could not see how it was done? WTH did you bother to do a re-inspection then? Just to take my money?'

There is no way for you to come out of that as a 'winner', nor for your client to come out as a 'winner' (unless you open your checkbook, call a roofer, and write a check to cover the cost of the roof repair - and you still lose ... you still have lost that customer and you have now lost money). I just don't see where that makes sense.

When I first started I did re-inspections; then as I learned what I really should be doing I started requesting paper work, documentation, warranties, etc., for those items; then I realized that all I was doing was adding my name to the list of those providing a warranty *if I did not find something which was not done correctly with the repair* - which means you are only going out there to reject the repair, not accept it ... and that is not fair to your client either.

Jerry, I am listening but I just don't see it the same as you (maybe the type of houses I inspect are simpler compared to the houses you inspect).

When trying to think about things like this and only address the simplest of issues, you re deceiving yourself about what to do, you need to address this with not only the simplest issues (such as your multiple tap example) to the most complex and risky issues (such as my example of roof leaks and foundation).

Otherwise how would you explain it to your client: "I can do a re-inspection for simple issues but not the complex issues which are what would really bit you in the butt?" I doubt that would go over very well with your client, they would probably say something like: "Then don't bother doing a re-inspection." ... which is precisely what we are saying.

I gave a simple example so you would not manipulate the point I was making.

Your examples are what if's.
Flashing appears to be installed properly around the chimney.
"what if" it leaks?
Asphalt roof shingles appears to be installed properly.
"what if" it leaks?
Water heater is installed properly.
"what if" it leaks?

Let's go the roof leak example: You tell your client that it was repaired, only to have it leak at the next rain ... how are you going to explain to your client that you could not tell if it was done correctly....

How would you explain to your client if you did an inspection for the first time and the roof leaked the next rain after they moved in?

Unless you are willing to 'do it all' (and that would really put yourself and your client at risk and on the hook), we are saying 'don't do it, any of it', and 'have the seller provide permits, inspections, work orders, paid receipts, and WARRANTIES from the companies which did the work' - let THOSE THINGS and those companies back up what they said they did.

"do it all"? Who (regarding a home inspector) can say they "do it all"? Using the same standards and expectations that were used during the original home inspection - I don't see a problem with that.

We report in writing what we see and report in writing any limitations. This is sound advise if your doing the home inspection for the first time or a re-inspection.

O-well, that's what's great about owning ones own business.

Hope the weather is nicer by you then it is here.

Originally Posted by Kevin Luce

I gave a simple example so you would not manipulate the point I was making.

The problem with doing that is that the simple items are no brainers, while the complex items requiring thinking about all of the 'what ifs'.

You cannot simply go out to do a re-inspection and then simply pick the simple items, ... well, you can, but that would not do your client any good.

The fact becomes one of doing it all or none as doing 'some' does not help your client, and 'do it all' puts you at great risk and only helps 'some' clients 'some' - not a very positive thing one can say about trying to help someone.

The weather is not nice up by you? That would account for the cold front we've had the past week, nice but a little chilly.

What I posted above is the same as this.

When you inspect and there is no visible signs that there has been water dripping into the attic and no water stains on ceilings and it is not raining , that is all you can tell them. If it leaks when it rains in a month, oh well, sorry, no signs when I was there and it was not raining.

When you inspect a new roof or repair where it has been leaking in the past and then you tell them that the repair has been done (and you know they are looking for "was it done right" and then it rains and it leaks. You won't be liable because the roofing company will be warrantying the work and will correc the repair but you have a second trip back, more phone calls, they call you first and try to put it on you and you put it back on the roofer and then the roofer calls you and thenm you call them and then you make another trip out there (most likely for nothing........................................... ............Man what a head ache.

When my inspections are done and everything was "at the time of the inspection" it will almost always end completely right there.

No headaches, extra trips, lost time, arguments, debates, maybe other out of pocket expense etc etc etc.

If you do a reinspect it now becomes "not at the time of the inspection"

Read my post above . It all says everything Jerry and Scott and OH my God Aaron says

I simply hate reinspects and do everything I can not to do them.

Here is the big problem I have with re-inspections. The repairs and work are RARELY DONE CORRECTLY OR ADEQUATELY.

Originally Posted by Trent Tarter

Here is the big problem I have with re-inspections. The repairs and work are RARELY DONE CORRECTLY OR ADEQUATELY.

And headache, headache, headache

The problems that many of you have talked about makes me appreciate the area I live in. From my experience, the builders are fairly good around here, the Realtors overall do a good job, home inspectors around here are overall knowledgeable, not too many home inspectors in this area after licensing started, licensing and CE requirements for HI is reasonable and problems arising since I started doing re-inspection in the last 6 years has been minimal.

The problems that many of you have talked about makes me appreciate the area I live in. From my experience, the builders are fairly good around here, the Realtors overall do a good job, home inspectors around here are overall knowledgeable

Kevin: Where do you live? Nirvana? Oh, I get it. You are actually Garrison Keillor, living in Lake Wobegon . . .

Kevin, you should come visit Philadelphia and see some of the rehabs John and I get to look at. One thing is for sure, your report writing skills will get a workout.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

Kevin, you should come visit Philadelphia and see some of the rehabs John and I get to look at. One thing is for sure, your report writing skills will get a workout.

Nick: Kevin is definitely smoking some primo stuff, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Nick: Kevin is definitely smoking some primo stuff, that's for sure.

lol, Why do you say that? Because some of the things I have read over the years I haven't come across to that degree. I have to pay $450 every two years to be licenses to do Home Inspections. 32 hours of CE credits which all that is required is to pay for the class and sign in - no taking a test. I pay $250 a year to get a supra key that is used by Realtors in all the counties I do home inspections for. Phone book advertising for two counties is a little under $200 a month. This area phone book is $185 for a full color add that is a little bigger than a business card size. When it comes to houses, yes I have come across some bad ones in the past but those are more the exceptions than the rule.

Let me know if you are ever in this area, you can take a ride with me to a home inspection and see what I normally come across. Maybe that will make you want to move over here.

Don't get me wrong, I have the headaches at times from dealing with clients/Realtors/the houses themselves, it just that some of these things I have read from other home inspectors, it just makes me appreciate this area.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

Kevin, you should come visit Philadelphia and see some of the rehabs John and I get to look at. One thing is for sure, your report writing skills will get a workout.

I lived in the north east for 36 years. I do not envy you inspectors up there. I inspected part time when I was there along with building, remodeling and a commercial drywall business. I di a lot of work from time to time in Phily.

I would not want to be inspecting there on a full time basis. I know it must seem natural to you now but if you were away from there for a while you would know what I mean. I would constanly be in a depressed state pulling up to building after building and sitting outside and just looking at them before even going inside.

I pull up in front of an older well worn home down here now and then and depression sets in knowing all the wonderful things I am going to find without even stepping out of the truck yet. I am getting seriously spoiled with 75 percent of homes I inspect being in the 5 to ten year slab range.