Thread: 2nd re-inspect and still appears wrong.

How would you deal with doing a 2nd reinspect on a house and finding that the electrical in an underground pump house, still looks like this. I have twice called out questionable wiring, Recommend a licensed electrician evaluate further and make necessary repairs. The first time the electrician h didn't touch the box at all. The realtor is getting really upset. I am new in the industry and not sure how to convey that if the electrical feels its safe then its on him.

Originally Posted by cory nystul

How would you deal with doing a 2nd reinspect on a house and finding that the electrical in an underground pump house, still looks like this. I have twice called out questionable wiring, Recommend a licensed electrician evaluate further and make necessary repairs. The first time the electrician h didn't touch the box at all. The realtor is getting really upset. I am new in the industry and not sure how to convey that if the electrical feels its safe then its on him.

Obtain a Signed Letterhead Clearance Statement from a competent Licensed Electrical Contractor on panels located in northwest corner of basement.

*your photo shows evidence of a past fire event.

If you did not tell them what was wrong or what needed to be corrected, how can they know what you want fixed? How can you tell if it is fixed?
The point is to be more specific and don't call for xyz to "evaluate".
Tell them what you see that is wrong and what needs to be fixed.
Reinspections for "evaluated" opinions are useless.

Wiring in basement auxiliary panel is non professional, improperly wired, improper fusing. Retain services of licenced electrician to correct, immediately before close of title.

Implications, fire, electrocution.

At minimum I would abandon the old fuse panel, install tandem breakers in panel to allow 4 circuits, install proper grounding for panel.

Originally Posted by cory nystul

How would you deal with doing a 2nd reinspect on a house and finding that the electrical in an underground pump house, still looks like this. I have twice called out questionable wiring, Recommend a licensed electrician evaluate further and make necessary repairs. The first time the electrician h didn't touch the box at all. The realtor is getting really upset. I am new in the industry and not sure how to convey that if the electrical feels its safe then its on him.

Its not on you to do anything: report what you find.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

If you did not tell them what was wrong or what needed to be corrected, how can they know what you want fixed? How can you tell if it is fixed?
The point is to be more specific and don't call for xyz to "evaluate".
Tell them what you see that is wrong and what needs to be fixed.
Reinspections for "evaluated" opinions are useless.

Bumping up higher in thread because this is the key solution for the question ... and precisely what and why I keep pointing this same thing out over the years.

If you call for further evaluation ... you give the other person total control of it and no longer have any right or reason to question their evaluation of it.

You no longer have the option to call for repair, replacement, or even a signed and notarized letter from the King of England ... you gave all that away when you called for an evaluation by someone else.

At this point you are stuck between The Rock and The Hardplace ... you can only tell the agent to refer to the person who evaluated it - and learn the lesson for the next time ... and not repeat what you did this time.

Originally Posted by cory nystul

How would you deal with doing a 2nd reinspect on a house and finding that the electrical in an underground pump house, still looks like this. I have twice called out questionable wiring, Recommend a licensed electrician evaluate further and make necessary repairs. The first time the electrician h didn't touch the box at all. The realtor is getting really upset. I am new in the industry and not sure how to convey that if the electrical feels its safe then its on him.

kkkkk

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by cory nystul

How would you deal with doing a 2nd reinspect on a house and finding that the electrical in an underground pump house, still looks like this. I have twice called out questionable wiring, Recommend a licensed electrician evaluate further and make necessary repairs. The first time the electrician h didn't touch the box at all. The realtor is getting really upset. I am new in the industry and not sure how to convey that if the electrical feels its safe then its on him.

kkkkk

Its all wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Its all wrong.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Bumping up higher in thread because this is the key solution for the question ... and precisely what and why I keep pointing this same thing out over the years.

If you call for further evaluation ... you give the other person total control of it and no longer have any right or reason to question their evaluation of it.

You no longer have the option to call for repair, replacement, or even a signed and notarized letter from the King of England ... you gave all that away when you called for an evaluation by someone else.

At this point you are stuck between The Rock and The Hardplace ... you can only tell the agent to refer to the person who evaluated it - and learn the lesson for the next time ... and not repeat what you did this time.

What is the lesson exactly? Please state it.!

The point is to be more specific and don't call for xyz to "evaluate".
Tell them what you see that is wrong and what needs to be fixed.

Originally Posted by Tim Ganey

What is the lesson exactly? Please state it.!

Your answer is below:

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

The point is to be more specific and don't call for xyz to "evaluate".
Tell them what you see that is wrong and what needs to be fixed.

If YOU call for someone ELSE to "evaluate" it ... you have no recourse to say anything about what that other person says because YOU left it up to THEM to make the call ... and they did make the call - whether or not you agree with their call no longer matters as you left it up to them.

For the most part I don't re-inspect electrical work for the exact reason being discussed here. A home inspector's job isn't to be a code expert and how can you tell them exactly what to do if you don't know the code. I call for further evaluation and list what I see while also mentioning the specialist might find more wrong.

I'll go back and tell them it looks different than the first time I was there but I have no idea if it's correct to the current code or not. That's what the sparky is for. If they want to check up on the electrician hire another one to check his work. It would be much more valuable than paying me.

This all feeds right into the re-inspection - general doctor vs. specialist example. You go to your general doctor because something hurts and he sends you to a specialist. When you're done with the specialist the general doc doesn't critique the specialist's work.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

For the most part I don't re-inspect electrical work for the exact reason being discussed here. A home inspector's job isn't to be a code expert and how can you tell them exactly what to do if you don't know the code. I call for further evaluation and list what I see while also mentioning the specialist might find more wrong.

You already evaluated it, the specialist does not need to be told to evaluate it too - they just need to be called in to make corrections as listed and any others they find or create, i.e., your "the specialist might find more wrong" part.

You are contradicting yourself when you call for evaluation and then list what you see ... simply acknowledge that you evaluated it as you were paid to do, then call for corrections, and note that "the specialist might find more wrong" and they should correct that stuff too.

That way you are not contradicting yourself, you are not calling for evaluation when you already evaluated it, and you are leaving it up to the specialist to make ALL necessary corrections - whether the specialist makes ALL ... or even any ... corrections is up to them, not the HI.

Not sure why there continues to still be resistance on this. The HI did the "evaluation", if the HI didn't find anything wrong, so be it, and if the HI did find something wrong, so be that too - and document it (you could even write it down as 'corrections needed, including, but not necessarily limited to: blah, blah, blah'), then call for corrections.

I'm not sure I'm following you JP. I evaluate it and note what I find. I call for a specialist and say he may find more than what I see. How is that a contradiction?

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

I'm not sure I'm following you JP. I evaluate it and note what I find. I call for a specialist and say he may find more than what I see. How is that a contradiction?

I don't want to interrupt the dialogue between you and Jerry, but you did say

I call for further evaluation and list what I see while also mentioning the specialist might find more wrong.

I think the crux of what JP (and I tag onto that) is saying is to leave off the "further evaluation" wording. Tell them to FIX x, y, and z and anything else they might create or find wrong. But don't say EVALUATE or similar wording. If you call for them to give their OPINION then they can say they did not see anything that needs to be fixed and leave everything as screwed up as when they arrived and there is NOTHING the home inspector can hang his hat on because by calling for someone else to evaluate you abdicate any call for repairs that you may have made.
Either call for specific repairs or don't do reinspections.

As I said earlier reinspecting repairs after you called for someone else to EVALUATE and fix what THEY find wrong is worthless.

If an inspector doesn't know enough about code to specify repairs then he needs to learn.
At the very least, don't take a clients money to reinspect behind a "further evaluation" report.

I know this is contrary to common inspector speak taught in home inspection schools but remember you first need to provide a valuable service to your client and not just cover your butt with vague "further evaluation" double speak. Man-up and give your opinion and stand behind it!

Sorry if I overstepped what you meant Jerry.

All I can say is WOW

One can twist, turn and change the English language to mean just about anything they want to, I suppose.

Jim, you and JP are great guys and I've learned a lot from you over the years on this forum but its junk like this that makes me cruise by here once a week instead of once a day like a use to.

I've been doing inspections for 15 years and have a thick skin and am happy to engage people up to a point. It's too bad anyone asking a question gets met with BS like this. I'm sure it sours a lot of would-be posters on an otherwise great board.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

I'm not sure I'm following you JP. I evaluate it and note what I find. I call for a specialist and say he may find more than what I see. How is that a contradiction?

Matt, this is the part I was referring to that is contradictory: You stated that you called for further evaluation (see bold I added)

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

I call for further evaluation and list what I see while also mentioning the specialist might find more wrong.

Then I also stated that listing what you find wrong, as you said you did, is what HIs should do (you said you do that, I added this part for others who do not list what they see and just call for "further evaluation" as a CYA - I suspect that is their reason).

The difference is in your wording - there is nothing contradictory in what you are now saying:
"I evaluate it and note what I find. I call for a specialist and say he may find more than what I see." - I presume that "I call for a specialist" is for making the corrections you listed.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

I think the crux of what JP (and I tag onto that) is saying is to leave off the "further evaluation" wording. Tell them to FIX x, y, and z and anything else they might create or find wrong. But don't say EVALUATE or similar wording.
.
.
Sorry if I overstepped what you meant Jerry.

Jim,

That is precisely what I am saying. Thank you.

Another guy getting bitten back because he recommended 'further evaluation'.
Further evaluation is a decent enough recommendation when its obvious that walls or ceilings need to be opened up; i.e. remove drywall from water damaged south wall, provide further evaluation of wall and components, provide determined repairs. Not what I would use but it works well enough.
When the problems are staring you in the face, FE is just HI cop out lingo. I understand newbies need it to protect themselves from their lack of experience. Nonetheless you should be working away from using it as standard terminology.
Regardless of the particular trade, find yourself an experienced contractor you can call or email pics to when you aren't sure. You don't have to know everything but you do need to know enough to make a confident baseline recommendation of what to do.
I've had a newbie with me on/off for the last month. The HI school trained him well. Every time I asked him, 'so what would you recommend to the client?'. The answer was always some variation of 'have a contractor come out, evaluate the problem and fix it. I hope he does well wherever he ends up.
Come to think of it, the use of 'further evaluation' undermines our industry and credibility. What it essentially does is turn contractors into adhoc HI's. Why bother hiring an HI if you can have the contractor come out for free. If the HI is just going to say 'further evaluation by licensed contractor'; cut out the middle man and save $400.
The problem with that of course is that the contractor is there to see problems and solutions that he can sell. That of course doesn't necessarily solve the building problems or provide the client with their best possible outcomes.
Almost forgot, if you don't have the balls to flat out recommend 'replacement' of that crap, then exactly when are you going to grow a pair? How does that garbage need any further evaluation or anything besides replacement?

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Further evaluation is a decent enough recommendation when its obvious that walls or ceilings need to be opened up; i.e. remove drywall from water damaged south wall, provide further evaluation of wall and components, provide determined repairs. Not what I would use but it works well enough.

Even then the need is not further "evaluation" - the need is for further "investigation".

I realize we are only talking about words, different words, and their use, but ... once the inspection is done and you communicate the findings of the inspection to the client ... all you have are words. The wrong words can convey something quite unintentional to the client.

The dog bit the man - versus - the man bit the dog ... same EXACT words ... completely different meaning.

That further investigation leads to its own resulting "evaluation" based on what is ... or is not ... found during the further investigation.