Thread: Thinking of jumping in

Long story short, 4 properties, 4 home inspections completed by different home inspectors all of which left a bad taste in my mount. I feel like there is a lot of home buyers, especially first time home buyers that just aren't getting there monies worth on the home inspection. Please don't take it the wrong way I am sure there are plenty here that do a thorough ethical job here. Anyways i'm thinking of jumping in the field to try and help even the score.

Thanks for listening and I look forward to working with and learning from everyones experiences.

Joe

Similar Threads:

• What was he thinking
• Jumping in with both feet...and nervous!
• what was this guy thinking?
• Anyone jumping to OREP for E&O?
• Jumping Ship

Hi joseph landry and welcome to InspectionNews!

I'm Brian Hannigan and I created InspectionNews.

I hope you find everything you are looking for on this site.

If I can help you in any way just let me know.

As a "Thank You" for making your first post I have a gift for you. You can pick it up at:
http://www.SendYourFreeCard.com

Originally Posted by joseph landry

Long story short, 4 properties, 4 home inspections completed by different home inspectors all of which left a bad taste in my mount. I feel like there is a lot of home buyers, especially first time home buyers that just aren't getting there monies worth on the home inspection. Please don't take it the wrong way I am sure there are plenty here that do a thorough ethical job here. Anyways i'm thinking of jumping in the field to try and help even the score. Thanks for listening and I look forward to working with and learning from everyones experiences.
Joe

YOU FOOL!!!

Welcome Joe.

Originally Posted by joseph landry

I feel like there is a lot of home buyers, especially first time home buyers that just aren't getting there monies worth on the home inspection.

That is, unfortunately, a very astute and true of a statement ... unfortunately.

Please don't take it the wrong way I am sure there are plenty here that do a thorough ethical job here.

That is also a true statement, however (again, unfortunately) there are far more of the first type than of the second type.

Don't quit your day job - home inspections is a difficult business to establish yourself in and succeed. Many consider it as a 'little-to-no-money-up-front-with-easy-and-high-returns' business to start ... those people are completely wrong ... if you want to be a through and knowledgeable inspector and actually help your clients.

Good luck, and hope you can recognize the sharks before they see you.

Yes we have the same problem here. Lots of 1st time buyers who don't get an education as part of their inspection. They hire the low ball 'check box idiots'. Buyer would probably get a better inspection if they had their father in law or grampa show up.
On the one hand I don't care whether I do a 1st time buyer inspection or not. I am underpaid and under appreciated for what we provide. Doing 1st time buyer inspections takes twice as long since I end up given them the education someone else should have during their formidable years. I feel an obligation to educate them when given the chance since I figure they won't get it anywhere else. Unfortunately the millennials can be a real PIA. That BS way they've been taught to ask questions really annoys the crap out of me.
On the other hand, I really like doing 1st time buyer inspections because it is very satisfying knowing that you've given someone the knowledge to protect themselves from the sharks coming their way.
If you want to consider yourself a good, great, upper tier, kick ass inspector then you need to be taking extra time during a 1st time buyer inspection to educate them. If you aren't well then you're just another schmuck collecting a check.
Sorry to hear you had bad experiences. Unfortunately too many see this line of work as a way to a paycheck rather than a legitimate profession.
A good inspector is the last wall of defense for a buyer against agents and contractors that are more than happy to throw that buyer in front of the bus for their own economic benefit.

Originally Posted by joseph landry

Long story short, 4 properties, 4 home inspections completed by different home inspectors all of which left a bad taste in my mount. I feel like there is a lot of home buyers, especially first time home buyers that just aren't getting there monies worth on the home inspection. Please don't take it the wrong way I am sure there are plenty here that do a thorough ethical job here. Anyways i'm thinking of jumping in the field to try and help even the score.

Thanks for listening and I look forward to working with and learning from everyones experiences.

Joe

With ALL due respect, it depends on your definition of "thorough" and "ethical". By that did the home inspection meet a well known Standard of Practice or not? By ethical, what was the concern?

I'm just saying that sometimes home inspectors run into clients with "unrealistic" expectations, that all defects will be found, and all conditions reported. I'm not alone in knowing that some clients want just about everything documented that is beyond the "standards", such as the cosmetics, discolored joints in ceramic tile flooring, or mismatched paint colors on a wall.

Again, sorry to hear of your bad experience, but as noted by others, home inspection can be a difficult field to make a living at full time. Of course it also depends on your marketplace. But regardless, wishing you good things ahead.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

With ALL due respect, it depends on your definition of "thorough" and "ethical". By that did the home inspection meet a well known Standard of Practice or not?

Claude,

With ALL due respect, meeting ANY "well known Standard of Practice" does not make an inspection "thorough" ... all that meeting the requirements of an SoP does is make that inspection "compliant with the minimum requirements".

There are inspectors who struggle to meet SoP requirements. There are A LOT of these inspectors out there.

There are inspectors who meet SoP requirements and do 'some more' above and beyond the SoP requirements. There are MANY of these inspectors out there. Some of these inspectors may do what is needed to be called a "thorough" inspection.

Then there are inspectors who drink their cup of MoJo in the morning and go out and, so to speak, 'kick some a$$' ... where any SoP is simply the dirt they are standing on, and go from there, leaving the SoP in the dust as they walk off that starting dirt. There are not a lot of these inspectors out there - these inspectors do "thorough" inspections.

I've never understood why inspectors call the building code "minimum requirements" then consider meeting their SoP as being "thorough" - BOTH are "minimum" requirements. Does anyone consider a builder who manages to meet code as being a "quality and thorough" builder? I mean ... other than the builder him/herself ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Claude,

With ALL due respect, meeting ANY "well known Standard of Practice" does not make an inspection "thorough" ... all that meeting the requirements of an SoP does is make that inspection "compliant with the minimum requirements".

There are inspectors who struggle to meet SoP requirements. There are A LOT of these inspectors out there.

There are inspectors who meet SoP requirements and do 'some more' above and beyond the SoP requirements. There are MANY of these inspectors out there. Some of these inspectors may do what is needed to be called a "thorough" inspection.

Then there are inspectors who drink their cup of MoJo in the morning and go out and, so to speak, 'kick some a$$' ... where any SoP is simply the dirt they are standing on, and go from there, leaving the SoP in the dust as they walk off that starting dirt. There are not a lot of these inspectors out there - these inspectors do "thorough" inspections.

I've never understood why inspectors call the building code "minimum requirements" then consider meeting their SoP as being "thorough" - BOTH are "minimum" requirements. Does anyone consider a builder who manages to meet code as being a "quality and thorough" builder? I mean ... other than the builder him/herself ...

Thanks Jerry. I whole heartedly agree. I review a lot of court decisions against home inspectors here in Canada, and some from the US, and always remember that the courts always consider the inspectors "duty of care". Truly the SOP serves only as the baseline minimum standard, but I cannot discount unrealistic expectations from clients, that want to believe that a home inspection provides a guarantee or much more for systems that may fail in the future.

That was the intent of my question to the original post from Joseph.

As you noted, what defines the exact terms of being "thorough"? First off, home inspection association members typically have an obligation to meet the association minimum standard as a starter. As we know "building codes" only serve as the minimum "legally" accepted building standard, and it does not guarantee or provide for a quality built home.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

... but I cannot discount unrealistic expectations from clients, that want to believe that a home inspection provides a guarantee or much more for systems that may fail in the future.

That was the intent of my question to the original post from Joseph.

Claude,

While I agree with you on that part, that is mostly ... MOSTLY ... the fault of the home inspector not communicating to the client what "that home inspector's inspection" is intended to accomplish.

Many advertise "Complete Home Inspection" and their inspection is anything but "complete". Sure, their inspection might meet the minimum requirements of their SoP, but that does not make it a "complete" home inspection.

It seems to me that many home inspectors are 'afraid' to tell their clients the limitations of what they do, possibly for fear of losing the inspection? Regardless, it is better to "lose the inspection" than to "lose their shirt" after being sued ... but many inspectors do not seem to look at it that way. Managing their clients "expectations" IS the responsibility of the home inspector ... no one else can do that, only the home inspector can manage the expectations of their clients, and if they refuse to do that ... that leads down the road to "unrealistic expectations from clients" as you referred to it.

As we know "building codes" only serve as the minimum "legally" accepted building standard, and it does not guarantee or provide for a quality built home.

Which gets back to managing the clients expectations ... for builders and for home inspectors.