Consumer with a question about inspector responsibility....

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wsiegel

"Unfortunately we don't know the conditions that existed at the time of the inspection, so we don't know why the home inspector didn't report it."

That statement has nothing to do with her question. She wanted to know IF the inspector is supposed to identify the type of pipe (answer is yes) and if he did not, does she have any recourse (answer is maybe).

If he did not write his report correctly, then he should be held responsible. If he did state why he could not identify it, then he is covered (maybe).

See post #14.

[wsiegel]

And that folks, is why we have all these licensing bills. Once there is cause for a comsumer to be damaged (and it is usually someone in the government who now has the power to act) it becomes an arguement for licensing.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by wsiegel

And that folks, is why we have all these licensing bills. Once there is cause for a comsumer to be damaged (and it is usually someone in the government who now has the power to act) it becomes an arguement for licensing.

And in the immortal words of a long winded member...

Licensing solves nothing.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by bwiley

And in the immortal words of a long winded member...

Licensing solves nothing.

I'm quite sure my wise old grandmother is not a member, so someone else must have said that!

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Jeff,

I know you agree with Kentucky's ruling, Jeff, but many don't.

Decker, eat s h i t.

I will, Sir, take that as a high endorsment.

I thank you.

[klott]

It is not our job to consult or speculate on another inspector's liabilities, especially if he or she is possibly one of our own. Regardless of good intentions, we could inadvertanly harm our fellow inspector. In other words, lets not load a gun for a stranger. Reel in your egos gentlemen.

[cduphily]

Originally Posted by wdecker

I will, Sir, take that as a high endorsment.

I thank you.

I owe you a greenie for taking the high ground ... your a better man than I

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by cduphily

I owe you a greenie for taking the high ground ... your a better man than I

Naaa. Just a guy who is trying to learn how to suffer a fool.

Eat (fecal material) is not an arguement and is, therefore, beneath notice.

One must always pick his enemies wisely. That says it all.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by klott

It is not our job to consult or speculate on another inspector's liabilities, especially if he or she is possibly one of our own. Regardless of good intentions, we could inadvertanly harm our fellow inspector. In other words, lets not load a gun for a stranger. Reel in your egos gentlemen.

Sure! Circle the wagons! Don't help any consumers - (not because we don't have all the facts or because we don't know the conditions or laws applicable, but because "it isn't our job" and "we might hurt a fellow (bad) inspector")!

Or, of course, you can just simply vent expletives like the represnetative of InterNACHI leadership who has posted here.

What a nice reaction to a consumer with a legitimate question.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Sure! Circle the wagons! Don't help any consumers - (not because we don't have all the facts or because we don't know the conditions or laws applicable, but because "it isn't our job" and "we might hurt a fellow (bad) inspector")!

Or, of course, you can just simply vent expletives like the represnetative of InterNACHI leadership who has posted here.

What a nice reaction to a consumer with a legitimate question.

Shame you are no longer a member and now you come back to chastise those who do help many .
Now I expect you do know from past inspections the Home owner can forget to tell things they should about the home and some times even exaggerate a little .
Now you I am sure know we can not do an inspection on a picture and now you expect us to make e decision on some second hand information that could end up in court for a home that was inspected two years ago and we have no idea what was said or what was visible .
Please do not try and undermine those of us who have chosen to stay with NACHI and help all.
Thanks ...Cookie
</IMG>

[jmichalski]

Roy, no one undermined anyone who helped. (that was kind of the point of the post, for the subtlety impaired).

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm, but the point was that, sure homeowners do miss things, and reasonalbe, helpful responses include (as I mentioned) "we don't have all the facts" or "we dont know the applicable laws or circumastances." It is even possible to offer some standard advice regarding the SOPs and what should and should not be reported according to them (As some have done).

The "protect a 'fellow inspector's' back at all costs" mentality is the one that I criticize and find deplorable. I might decline comment (and probably would lacking more facts) because I can't offer direct help of much use to the consumer, but advising others to do so "to protect a fellow inspector" is just sad.

[James H. Bushart]

While I try not to address the whinings and other obnoxiously aggravating posts by disgruntled former NACHI members, this exception is simply to point out that Mr. Lott does not blindly defend an inspector...but suggests that the lack of facts makes it wrong to quickly jump to the conclusion that an inspector failed to do his job.

This is a sickening trend among inspectors...to find fault with the skills of our competitor to make us look smarter, better, etc...

There is more that we don't know than what we do know regarding the circumstances and...as Mr. Lott has pointed out...there is nothing submitted to this point that would necessarily indicate that the inspector did anything improper.

This could have been a highly touted (by michalski) $49 fly-by inspection that did not include any observations of the plumbing, at all.

We need more facts to place blame. I think this is the gist of Mr. Lott's remarks.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

I feel it is sad to communicate to a person who says they have a problem . We have no idea about any thing in this instance so I feel to offer any advice other then talk to her lawyer is wrong and in proper.
Too many people are just trying to bait us to slam the industry.
We even have A Franchise's P2P ASHI member Home Inspector who cheated and lied to make others look bad .
The 12 year old home inspector is a prime example .
This story keeps coming up .
... Cookie

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jbushart

While I try not to address the whinings and other obnoxiously aggravating posts by disgruntled former NACHI members, this exception is simply to point out that Mr. Lott does not blindly defend an inspector...but suggests that the lack of facts makes it wrong to quickly jump to the conclusion that an inspector failed to do his job.

This is a sickening trend among inspectors...to find fault with the skills of our competitor to make us look smarter, better, etc...

There is more that we don't know than what we do know regarding the circumstances and...as Mr. Lott has pointed out...there is nothing submitted to this point that would necessarily indicate that the inspector did anything improper.

This could have been a highly touted (by michalski) $49 fly-by inspection that did not include any observations of the plumbing, at all.

We need more facts to place blame. I think this is the gist of Mr. Lott's remarks.

Wow. So many inaccuracies by Bushart it is hard to tell where to start.

First, Mr. Lott did not ever, at an point, metion not having facts as a basis for his assertions. Instead, he stated that "itis not our job," "especially if he is one of our own," and further exponds on what he means by adding "we could inadvertantly hurt a fellw inspector." So, regardless of what Mr. Bushart wishes, Mr. Lott would have said, or perhaps what he thinks Mr. Lott should have said - not a single refence to a lack of evidence, incomplete facts or any other such basis for not rendering an opinion is provided yb Mr. Lott. His only basis - restaed twice for emphasis - is that it may harm another inspector.

A second inaccuracy is that I offer or promote fly-by inspections. That would be RR.

A third would be that any of my ispection levels start at $49 (way lower than my lowest WALK inspection fee).

A fourth would be that I am, in any way disgruntled ( I am, in fact completely gruntled! ) I dislike the InterNachi owner and his hand picked coeterie, but I don't harp on that, I don't slam orgs, nor do I disparage members of any association as a whole.

I think the C-SomeoneElse's-A mentatlity is sad - that is true. Where there are a lack of facts, rendering a conclusive opinion is irresponsible, but there is advice and basic information that could help this consmer without rendering any opinion on the situation. Those that offered such advice are to be commended.

Roy - there are bad inspectors everywhere. And I see no harm in passing along the SOPs inspectors should be performing to. Or giving the consumer some knopwledge about the SOPs and COEs that good and responsible inspectors perform to. Or providing a link to teh state requirements.

In the end, they will need to contact an attorney if they wish to proceed, but such information can help a consumer understand the limitations of the SOP and may diffuse the situation.