Thread: Different take on "Deal Killers"

Ever since I've been in this business I've seen countless posts how an inspector was considered a deal killer by a Realtor and the Realtors black balled them..
Honestly I believe there are far more Realtors that I could care less if they referred me, than Realtors that may or may not of blackballed me.

As one that is exposed to seeing and hearing several customer complaints for the past 6-7 years, my take, there are many inspectors that earned that title due to not knowing what the heck they are doing, and their cop out is , recommend additional evaluation.

I'm guessing if 80% of those inspectors had a clue about 50% of the defects they found, and properly explained the defect, instead of simply recommending additional evaluation, or blowing the defect out of proportion, 90% of the realtors that are considered black ballers would refer that inspector.

If you disagree and want to beat me up bring it on

Similar Threads:

• "I got it on this end Bud!!!"
• "Trying to do the American Dream thing..."
• Who needs 6" of clearance for single wall
• White "powder" at furnace exhaust tube
• Porch Re-Roof - How Should This Be "Flashed"

Slow Night Dan ?
.
3 Total Pictures

and the further evaluation, additional evaluation disclaimer on page 33.
.
.

Well, I can't beat you up on that!.

I see way too many 'recommend further evaluation" cop outs because they don't know what they're looking at.

Personally I do not care for the term deal killer as it sounds as if the H.I is trying to simply count as many issues as possible to terrify the buyer.

I myself explain issues and also explain in plain English how easy many of them are to correct.
Having your client with you on site is important and if an Agent thinks I should simply make a punchlist there is a problem.

That being said there are several Agents that make a point to refer me because of the details I give on site and in report.
As soon as a deal is "not" made based on what in the Agents mind is your fault you will never hear from them again.

I have found a pattern of regular referrals followed by no calls at all and it all boils down to perception.

Deal Killer ? only in the mind of the Agent however there are some Inspectors that actually are deal killers and they know who they are, that will tell clients to run for any issues found even though they can always be corrected.
Anyone thinking of themselves as a deal killer is bad for all of us.

To sum up Agent referrals are wanted but certainly have no effect on my process.

Originally Posted by Erby Crofutt

I see way too many 'recommend further evaluation" cop outs ...

... even though they may know what they are looking at.

Regardless of the reason that is used, I have been trying to stamp out the use of 'recommend further evaluation' for 20 years of so ... but some will never give it up ... they actually think it is useful and helps somebody ...

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Slow Night Dan ?
.
3 Total Pictures

and the disclaimer on page 33.
.
.

Yea I only had one today, figured I'd start a little scrap tonight to liven the board up

Disclaimer page 33.. I could of put additional evaluation on the dishwasher loop, anti tip and the other items

I am not against recommending additional evaluation just do not feel we are doing our clinets a good service if we recommend additional evaluation on every item with out explaining the defect.

3 pictures check this one out
http://www.inspectaz.com/mobile_home_sample_report.PDF

I see Lisa is spamming/ hawking a year old post for her joke of an excuse for a MFG Home course on another topic, for her $360.00 Free course

Heck if the members here used this sample report as a guide line when inspecting Mfg. Homes or post a question they have about Mfg Homes , they would not have to pay her to get what they need to know for really free

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

.
Yea I only had one today, figured I'd start a little scrap tonight to liven the board up

.
Yeah Ya Got me.
.

I see Lisa is spamming/ hawking a year old post for her joke of an excuse for a MFG Home course on another topic, for her $360.00 Free course

.
Don't Get Me Started.
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I have been trying to stamp out the use of 'recommend further evaluation' for 20 years of so

My state actually requires it

Or, at least it's in the list of options we are given.

Dan

You hit the nail on the head with regard to inspectors recommending additional evaluations.

I don't think any inspector who passes the buck is really assisting the client. Just what is the client paying for? Not much.

I had a listing agent give me an earful of static over the phone a couple months ago because I called for straight-up replacement of damaged and delaminated roof plywood roof. The report included pics of the decking as observed from inside the attic. He felt I should have called for "further evaluation".

I have a slightly different opinion of why Realtors, and Sellers I might add, get upset with some phrasing. Depending on the phrasing, it gives the impression to a novice home buyer that a correction or even a commented items in the report MUST be done for the transaction to complete due to the compliance or maditory tone in a report. I would rather accurately inform a buyer of a concern and the scope of the repair or correction but let the buyer's or seller's contractor handle the details of how to repair. The inspector reports it. The contractor fixes it.

There are two separate issues here.
1. Deal Killer. I can't kill a deal by itemizing defects or potential defects in a property. That's my job. It will, by it's very nature, conflict with the Realtor's job which is to push property to a close. Ocasionally a deal will die because I pointed out things that were concerns. That's just math. I do hate the brand some agents lay on me for doing my job, but it does come with the territory.

2. Refer for further evaluation. At least in North Carolina, that is the recommended way of doing reporting based on the assumption that, unlike some members of this forum, I'm a mere mortal who may not actually know everything about everything. I might not know the exact why the heating systems had 1/2 the drop the spec plate stated.
I'm a generalist who is given a miniscule amount of time and money to judge a complicated combination of systems. If I could get a thousand dollars for a house, maybe I could do better. But when I can only get a few hundred dollars, I have to do the best I can. And that may occasionally call for the use of "further evaluation by a licensed professional". Nothing wrong with it and I sure don't apologize for it. The system, whatever it is, had an issue in need of repair and I told my client just that.
JLMathis

Originally Posted by Jeffrey L. Mathis

The system, whatever it is, had an issue in need of repair and I told my client just that.
JLMathis

If there is an issue in need of repair, then label it a Repair Item, not a Further Evaulate item. If you know its broken, then call to have repaired.

If something is not functioning as intended, it is broken. It doesnt need further evaluation, it needs fixing.

Using your example that the HVAC is only producing 1/2 the spec, it is broken. The repair tech is going to have to further evalute to determine what to fix, but it still needs fixing. It is really just a mind set change from everything that is not functioning is broken. Broken things don't need further evaluation, they need repair.

You have already evaluated the defect. You determined it is not functioning. It needs to be repaired. Yes the tech will have to further evaluate it to determine what specificially to repair, but something needs repair. Focus on the repair.

Here is another example of what I think is a "Grey area"
Lets say you have a stairway, be it an interior or a deck. The run or rise does not fit the desirable range but is otherwise in good condition.
Would you recommend a correction such as Repair or Replacement???
Some corrections are just not practical, such as stating that a electrical panel must be relocated due to being located in a closet. In a majority of cases a panel, such as this will never have an issue. The inspectors job is to inform their clients and let the client make their decision to buy or make corrections based on the information given. The term "Further Evaluation" can even apply to the buyer, evaluating whether to purchase despite a condition.
I do realize that different jurisdiction have different requirements for inspectors, not allowing for much latitude.

The problem is its not always obvious something is broken or functioning properly. An example would be a complex heating system. In which case I always report that the system should be further evaluated by a licenced HVAC technician who is familiar with the system prior to close of title.

There are times when an inspector is not going to know the design specs.

Originally Posted by Bob R

Here is another example of what I think is a "Grey area"
Lets say you have a stairway, be it an interior or a deck. The run or rise does not fit the desirable range but is otherwise in good condition.
Would you recommend a correction such as Repair or Replacement???
Some corrections are just not practical, such as stating that a electrical panel must be relocated due to being located in a closet. In a majority of cases a panel, such as this will never have an issue. The inspectors job is to inform their clients and let the client make their decision to buy or make corrections based on the information given. The term "Further Evaluation" can even apply to the buyer, evaluating whether to purchase despite a condition.
I do realize that different jurisdiction have different requirements for inspectors, not allowing for much latitude.

If the rise/run is not in the desirable range, the stair is not functioning as intended. It is a Safety hazard. Repair. There is no need to call for further evaluation. It is a safety hazard. You have already evaluated the stairs and determined they are in need of repair.

Electrical panels in bathrooms, laundry rooms, under staircases, and hidden behind cabinetry and other stuff is a safety hazard. They do not require further evaluation, they are safety hazards and need to be reported as in need of repair.

It is up to the buyer and seller to determine the if they care about the hazard and the cost to remedy. It is not an inspectors job to only report the items that are not too much trouble to fix.

Every item that is flagged as a further evaluate has already been evaluated by the home inspector. They don't need further evaluation, they need repair.

Generally, my wording is "evaluate and make neessary repairs". But since I can't be there for the repairs, I want the repair contractor to be thorough. Asking for evaluation in the context of repairs is not shirking my responsibilities to my client. It's telling him or her that there is an issue here and I want them to know what the issue is, why it's an issue, and what was done to remedy that issue. I also advise that that be in writing from the repair contractor.

But if a set of stairs does not conform to an arbitrarily defined set of parameters does not make them unsafe. It may well make them worthy of consideration by the buyer and necessarily reported. A panel in a closet in an old house. A panel in a kitchen cabinet in an old house. Neither are inherently unsafe. Awkward. Not currently allowed. But hardly unsafe. Worthy of mention in a report? Maybe.
I guess it's all in the art of the language. I need to make my client clearly aware of what's in the property, what works and what doesn't, and if it doesn't, what to do. But I think I can make just as viable an argument that merely citing a problem and calling for repair then walking away is just as insufficient as anything else talked about here so far.
JLMathis

Whether we recommend repair or further evaluation has nothing to do with the term "Deal Killer". Our job is too find problems and we don't need to have all the answers. This is how our profession is defined and how we work. In fact, we should not offer specific solutions to problems, unless we are licensed in that particular field.

We're not always perfect and we even sometimes make mistakes, but it is not a reason for a deal to go sour.

It is my belief that a deal is usually "killed" or goes sour by the realtor's inability to manage the input from the inspection report or to resolve party conflicts through common sense resolution and negotiation.

I would love to offer a course on how to manage the home inspection process to Realtors. I afraid though it would alienate them even further.

I don't know about anyone else, but my clients expect me to provide guidance on the issues I find, that includes what remedies may be used to correct a situation.

I'd agree "further evaluate" is largely over-used in our industry. To me, it's true use is when you have a damaged floor around a tub or toilet or some other problem where additional damage is suspected. Further investigation is more accurate and something I use more.

*Inspectors* do not "kill deals", however, inspectors will many times do a postmortem autopsy on the deceased to 'find out why' the deal was dead on arrival.

Sometimes, there were acts of commission and foul play involved, other times there were simply acts of omission, and sometimes it is a matter of death by natural causes.

"there were acts of commission and foul play involved," - seller intentionally tried to hide major damage

"other times there were simply acts of omission," - deferred maintenance killed the beast

"sometimes it is a matter of death by natural causes" - never updated and the cost of updating is now more than the cost of the house, in these cases, the right sales price may have resulted in a full recovery of the house to all of its former grandeur.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

If the rise/run is not in the desirable range, the stair is not functioning as intended.

So... if a stair or stairway is even slightly out of spec. it does not function and is unusable without repair? if understand your point of view correctly.
I would agree the stairs and the panel examples have the potential to be unsafe but are in fact, usable without repair. Although some jurisdictional requirements govern how an inspector reports an issue and may require a phrasing that doesn't fit well. The point I'm trying to make is, the phrasing can make a big difference on how others, with a different point of view may see an issue.

I am currently living in a home with both of these issues as well as others and have done so for ten years without incident.

=====
The stairway rise and run does not meet current safety standards though it may have met the safety standards in effect at the time of construction. It's your family who'll be living with it. Repair to current standards or learn to live with it. It's your safety and your choice.
======

Jeffery, This is not to jerk your personal chain.
You stated:
"...I'm a generalist who is given a miniscule amount of time and money to judge a complicated combination of systems. ..."

"...I'm a generalist..." As much as you want to be. Knowing all and seeing all, no but it is to often used as a cop-out for lack of knowledge. It goes hand in hand with "further evaluation is needed" .

"...given a miniscule amount of time and money..." Many have said the same thing or something similar.
- But, is it not a correct statement that you are not given a limited time to perform an inspection. The amount of time you expend is your choice and personal parameters.
- You are not just given the money, you state your fee for the inspection. Clients do not say, "here are a few dollars, do what you can in x amount of time." The HI sets the price for the work.

It is a very rare occurrence that the HI is told that access is limited to x-hrs and the HI has only y-hrs to complete all tasks, research, create a report and perform all communications necessary.

Using time and money as what is limiting the job performance/thoroughness is a bad explanation. The job performance is only limited by the HI individually. The idea that the price determines the quality of the effort is wrong and a bad mind set. As a society we often say that you get what you paid for and then transpose that idea across all aspects of life. Most all are ready to castigate the building contractor for cutting corners to get a higher profit when the bid did not account for aspects that took longer to complete than expected. The contractor bids the job at a price and is expected to complete it at the highest performance level. It it takes longer, you just make less that day. Hard knocks. Live and learn. If you are not willing to take as long as it takes to do a job for the price you set then you should not be doing the job in the first place.

It may be to old school to say that you give 100% no mater what your compensation.

On the "further evaluate" and "repair needed/recommended".
Further evaluation is a hold over from the early days of Home Inspection Industry. When many jumped in to a easy and potentially lucrative service. As SOPs were created they created methods for lack of accountability for the service. Limitations and exclusions for lack of knowledge. Sadly still being taught in HI curriculum nation wide. Incorporated in State law and regulations by HI lobbyists, consultants and organizations. Further evaluation possibly should be changed to "evaluation is needed by _____ due to _______." And not as a result of the HI just being under informed or inexperienced in a particular area.

Repair needed/recommended. I would interject that if you state that a repair is needed and you do not want take the liability that more is needed in the repair than exactly what you stated. It may be wise to say that evaluation and repair is recommended, if only to leave open additional things not stated may be needed in the repair. Just to cover the potential liability of omission issue. Unless you are going to write in explicit depth and detail.

The deal killer concept is also shared by the lenders that limits the mortgage amount and the appraisers that evaluate for less than the contract price. Please do not forget the parents or Uncle Joe that has influence with the buyer. The bad school system or the bad unpleasant neighborhood. Oh, how about the airport next door. In agreement with Jerry that its the information that kills not the informer.

Gary S makes some good points.
The day I started this post, I saw 'Additional Evlauation by an Electrican Recommended" for a broken outlet cover on a sample report from the web from an inspector that was spouting off how realtors black balled him for being too picky.
My thought was that inspector could be justifily considered a "Deal Killer" by a realtor. Not due to him reporting the defect, but how the defect was reported.

To me if a buyer sees this on every item, big or small, at some point the buyer is going to give up, walk away from the transaction, if they are advised to have a contractor from every trade evaluate the defect.

Very interesting thread. So, no one mentioned (unless I missed it) how old the house was with the defective stairs. Your job is to assist your buyer in a professional manner. "The stairs were not constructed correctly according to normal practice, but they have obviously served the house for x number of years. Just exercise caution." Your buyer knows they weren't correct, but they work. The comment about the fancy heating system also got to me. Even though an inspector may not know everything about every product he should have the knowledge to figure the system out. You can describe the system, test it, even though you may not be 100% aware of it you should be able to discern whether it is working or not and whether it has had routine maintenance. The only time anyone in my company recommended "further evaluation," let me take that back - No one ever recommended that. They might state that something was incorrect and you need to bring in the (name the discipline) to give you an estimate of the repair or correction. You (inspectors) need to reinforce your professionalism by making positive statements even when you describe a negative event. When the buyer reads your report he should be in awe of your knowledge. But to pass on judgement of simple things for further evaluation just does not pass muster.

Just my humble opinion.

Agreed, get some ballz and call it out the issues. Don't hide behind someone else's "further evaluation".

I never use the term, "Futher Evaluation". I agree with JP on that matter. I do sometimes recommend assessment by a specialist in those few cases I think there is something I can't see or determine myself that may be of real concern.

Example: Recent inspection on a 1960 house with cast iron and galvanized steel DWV. Cracked main stack pipe that had a final drop on a 45 degree slope for about 10-12 feet. I was able to see small leak at a joint inside a ceiling; an AAV in a wall; a DIY piece of ABS connected to a CI el that was leaking; (Wonderful things those small digital cameras). I recommend, not further evaluation, but that a plumber video scope the entire drain system since there could be other leaks and cracks not visible and repair or replacement could be a major expense.

Yes "further evaluation" should be used judiously, but it shouldn't be inferred that it should not be used at all.

Contrary to the theory that one should be able to tell tha a system is operating properly, or that the system has had routine maintenance is not always possible.
We all know that, regardless of experience or education. One approach does not fit all scenarios, or to even suggest its a cop out is nonsense.

The Ashi SOP state under Purpose and Scope - item 2.2

C. 2 - recommendations to correct, or monitor for future correction, the deficiencies reported in 2.2.C.1, or items needing further evaluation. (Per Exclusion 13.2.A.5 inspectors are NOT required to determine methods, materials, or costs of corrections.)

While there are some Realtors that will blame the loss of the deal on the H.I. and will not refer to them further, I think the really good (and most of) ones know that their future is tied in part to referrals, and if the client ends up getting bit, they’re just as likely to blame, and bad mouth, the Realtor as the H.I. that let something slide.
The crappy ones that are just looking to close a quick deal with little regard for the client’s long term satisfaction – who needs em?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Yes "further evaluation" should be used judiously, but it shouldn't be inferred that it should not be used at all.

Contrary to the theory that one should be able to tell tha a system is operating properly, or that the system has had routine maintenance is not always possible.
We all know that, regardless of experience or education. One approach does not fit all scenarios, or to even suggest its a cop out is nonsense.

The Ashi SOP state under Purpose and Scope - item 2.2

You are 100% correct. There should be no one saying that the term "further evaluation" should never be used.

If it is needed, which happens semi regularly, it should be used. But, a caution to the over use as in anything, moderation, is the key word.

As an example. If the HVAC system is not working and you check thru it a bit and it just is not going to happen, without extensive, or should I say, time consuming digging, Then it is time for an HVAC contractor to further evaluate, or some off course term that you wish to hide behind so you never say "further evaluation" is needed. It could just be a faulty thermostat or what ever.

In this profession there are a multitude of terms to use and further evaluation is one of them. That occasional use should not condemn any inspector. It has its place.

I agree with Jim L. ...

If it's broke, not right, etc. ... make note of it.

Provide your client with the information/education they are paying you for.