Did home inspector overlook rotten floor?

[Raymond Wand]

Did home inspector overlook rotten floor?

Similar Threads:

• Introduction-floor covering inspector
• Rotten bathroom floor
• (rotten, infested) MDF?
• Rotten Floor Joists
• Home, sweet home if you had a good inspector - TheNewsTribune.com

[Jack Feldmann]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. A lot can happen in two months under the right conditions. Since none of us were there, its just guessing.

[Jerry Peck]

"The lesson to be learned, he told The Star Press, is that "a home inspection is not a guarantee that nothing is ever going to go wrong with your home. It's a snapshot in time at the time we do the inspection."

Huh?

The "lesson learned" should have been to document, document, document, ...

Document using photos and descriptions - 'I inspected/did not inspect the crawlspace by ... and found access was limited by ... see photos x, y, and z.'

Sounds to me like he did not learn the learn which was being taught.

Added with edit: Gosh, I just remembered ... good old Raymond can't see my reply ... oh so sad ...

[Dom D'Agostino]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. A lot can happen in two months under the right conditions. Since none of us were there, its just guessing.

Agreed, but this is from the article...

According to the attorney general, "the degree of degradation of the sub-floor was so significant that it could not have occurred within the two-month time span" between the inspection and when the Hustons moved into their new home.

Dom.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

.Added with edit: Gosh, I just remembered ... good old Raymond can't see my reply ... oh so sad ...

Jerry, as one professional to another, please let it go.
I use to repeatedly post my displeasure about this type of behavior on your favorite associations message board.
Thank you.
Best regards.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, as one professional to another, please let it go.
I use to repeatedly post my displeasure about this type of behavior on your favorite associations message board.
Thank you.
Best regards.

Robert,

I'm not posting displeasure ... I find it humorous that Raymond, of all people, ignores others.

It's not unprofessional like what you used to do, this I find funny.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

I concur, Jerry.

Hear me out, it becomes a behavioral line in the sand for others to cross.
Hell, I was a complete moron when I fist started posting here several years back. "I was Gullabull, A real Nincowpoop. An Utramaroon" Willing to fight with anyone.
Finally gaining sense looking to learn and grow and possibly contribute like yourself, Raymond, Scot, John, Bill and all the other great colleagues here.

Ray might have things on his mind causing anxiety.
Just a thought.

[Jack Feldmann]

Agreed, but this is from the article...



Dom.

I did see that. However, that is the same thing as when a contractor says, "Your home inspector should have seen this", when they were not there during the inspection and have no idea what conditions were present then. Its their opinion. Does not make it true.

[Raymond Wand]

PLA :: License Litigation
http://www.in.gov/apps/pla/litigatio....aspx?id=29325

Thats some report form. Not!

[Jack Feldmann]

While it may not be the best report system out there, it does appear to meet SOP.

I've seen some reports on software that a lot of people on this forum use and swear by. I'm not that impressed. However, its really subjective. What one person likes about a report software, someone else can't stand. Does not make one better than the other, just makes them different.

I could infer from his report that he DID report on how he inspected crawlspace (one of the complaints against him).
Maybe he did miss some moisture damage, but he also called out several defects as well.

He got sued, and had to deal with this stuff. I don't wish that on anyone.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Jack, are you referring to the report in Raymond's post #9 or am I missing the report you looked at?
As for the home inspection, septic and well report Raymond posted, I see nothing mentioned in the foundation section to which I would expect to see water intrusion such as cracks, nor do I see a crawl space section period.

I see a short 16 page report.
It is lacking narrative and description of structure, systems and components.

The only thing I was waiting for, that never really popped up, was the term serviceable, although if he had one dollar for every time he used acceptable in that report and he was in business using the same reporting style for ten years, I bet he would be a rich man today.

Am I missing something as per usual?

Time for bed.

[Raymond Wand]

ASHI SOP -

3. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
3.1
The inspector shall:
A.
inspect structural components including the foundation and framing.

B. describe:
1. the methods used to inspect
under-floor crawlspaces and attics.
2. the foundation.
3. the floor structure.
4. the wall structure.
5. the ceiling structure.
6. the roof structure.

Findings of AG on page 2 (PDF link above) item 5 and 12 states respondent did not indicate method used to inspect underfloor of crawlspace and floor structure.

Indiana SOP - http://www.in.gov/pla/files/HILB.2011_EDITION.pdf
(B) describe:
(i) the foundation and report the methods used to inspect the underfloor crawlspace;
(ii) the floor structure;
(iii) the wall structure;
(iv) the ceiling structure; and
(v) the roof structure and report the methods used to inspect the attic.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Ray, not to quibble but, Jack is referring to SOP and not if the inspector preformed SOP.
Jack, please excuse me if I misrepresented you thoughts on the subject.

Ray, no one is disputing you observations, well let us see if your personally developed invisible man has something to say, I am certain we all can agree avoiding SOP got him into trouble.

IMO, limitations would have been a valuable resource for this particular inspector to utilize.

"Did the inspector overlook the rotten flooring?", the biggest failing for that home inspector was to withhold that almighty trump card and forcing a gambit right off the start with, your honor it was SERVICEABLE.

[Raymond Wand]

Robert you lost me. The SOP are the standard, either in performance in carrying out the inspection and the legal requirement under state code. I don't see the matter as two issues, I see it as failure to follow state licencing requirements fwiw.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

If you think you were lost, put yourself in my place. Ha ha ha.

Raymond, he did not perform SOP or what is legally prescribed by state law.
It is quite obvious.

I am having fun. That's all.

As you and I both agree, regulations and licensing does not stop this type of omission occurrence.
Look at what made the headlines in BC.
That inspector holds, or at least held a prominent position with what was then thought of as Canada's largest home inspection association, but not any more.

IMO, regulations and licensing might slow down the occurrence of poor reporting practices until the dust settles, but then REA's are right back marketing to the culled herd.
Inspectors relying on financial stability may do anything to stay afloat.

Until there is a legislation separating REA's referring home inspectors, we will never know if the obvious conflicts of interest affects home inspectors, consumers and the occurrence of poor reporting practices.

Ray, home buying consumers should remember, caveat emptor and ask themselves, "what role does that assigned buyers agent really have, and whom do they REALLY work for?"

[Jerry Peck]

Raymond's invisible man here - that report said 'slab- and 'crawlspace' and method of inspection was 'inside'.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Jerry, it says, underlined mine,
FOUNDATION TYPE: Concrete Block, (CMU) , Poured Concrete.

ITEMS INSPECTED: Foundation: Exposed walls.
Everything appeared inspected. No defects.


Bathrooms. Toilet loose. Mentions caulking.
May be from the toilet.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, it says, underlined mine,
FOUNDATION TYPE: Concrete Block, (CMU) , Poured Concrete.

ITEMS INSPECTED: Foundation: Exposed walls.
Everything appeared inspected. No defects.


Bathrooms. Toilet loose. Mentions caulking.
May be from the toilet.

I'll have to look later, right now we just stopped across the state line in Georgia on our way to Savanah.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

I'll have to look later, right now we just stopped across the state line in Georgia on our way to Savanah.

Have a good time and safe trip home.

[Jack Feldmann]

Jack, are you referring to the report in Raymond's post #9 or am I missing the report you looked at?
As for the home inspection, septic and well report Raymond posted, I see nothing mentioned in the foundation section to which I would expect to see water intrusion such as cracks, nor do I see a crawl space section period.

I see a short 16 page report.
It is lacking narrative and description of structure, systems and components.

The only thing I was waiting for, that never really popped up, was the term serviceable, although if he had one dollar for every time he used acceptable in that report and he was in business using the same reporting style for ten years, I bet he would be a rich man today.

Am I missing something as per usual?

Time for bed.

I think if you look on page 15 you will find the foundation section. He did describe the foundation and components, and he did infer he went inside (IMHO when he put inside under access).
While you may not like the term Acceptable, its the term he consistently uses to mean A-OK (I assume). You do not need 80 pages to write a report that meets SOP. You don't even need 80 pages to write an informative, complete report.

While I agree this report is certainly not a great format in my opinion, it does meet SOP (if filled out properly). I do agree with others that he seemed to miss the ball when it came to calling out a problem.
Maybe it wasn't there at the time, maybe it wasn't visible for some reason, or maybe he just missed it.

Hopefully he will learn something from this experience. and sharpen his report writing skills and maybe inspecting skills as well.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

I think if you look on page 15 you will find the foundation section. He did describe the foundation and components, and he did infer he went inside (IMHO when he put inside under access).

I agree. He did describe the foundation components. CMU and poured concrete.
I will review the report again. I only gave the entire report a cursory 5 minute review on the items in question.

While you may not like the term Acceptable, its the term he consistently uses to mean A-OK (I assume). You do not need 80 pages to write a report that meets SOP. You don't even need 80 pages to write an informative, complete report. While I agree this report is certainly not a great format in my opinion, it does meet SOP (if filled out properly). I do agree with others that he seemed to miss the ball when it came to calling out a problem.

Again, I concur with what you are saying. IMO, repeating, "acceptable" shows a lack of regard for the client.

Maybe it wasn't there at the time, maybe it wasn't visible for some reason, or maybe he just missed it.

Hard to miss soft spongy flooring.
If the flooring was solid without staining or other reasonable signs of water infiltration yet saturated that would fall under latent and not a patent defect.
I will review the case law.

Hopefully he will learn something from this experience. and sharpen his report writing skills and maybe inspecting skills as well.

I agree. I am certain that is why many individuals visit Inspection news.

Jack, thank you for the reply. Much appreciated!
Makes me feel comfortable knowing individuals like yourself and other long standing members reply to my posts.
Best regards.

[Garry Sorrells]

This case is an fine example of why you should take pictures of things that are "acceptable" , show no defect or present issue. Not saying that every square inch of the house be photographed, just known potential problem areas that you have access to.

Not to be used in the report, but for historical documentation purpose. In other words to just cover your butt in the future.