HUD Inspection Wildly Off the Mark

[Curious Pittsburgher]

Hello everyone - I just found this board and have a question regarding a HUD inspection report on a home we are buying.

Our inspector found multiple problems - some major that were either not noted or were completely opposed to the findings of the HUD inspector. I realize that some things are subjective and probably no two inspectors would come to the exact same conclusions regarding the same house - but, is it your experience for a HUD home inspection to be worlds away, condition-wise, of a private home inspectors report?

[jbreazeale]

C.P.,

The HUD inspector is not looking for the same things as your home inspector. He is generally a compliance inspector, meaning that he is looking to see that certain things are in place. For instance, on a rural property, he will check to see if there is a pump and storage tank, but makes no effort to check the operation or condition. He may note that there is central air and heat, and even look at the type of venting, but does not operate the equipment or look for conditions that may cost you some money. Basically, HUD wants to know if the home is "financible", to coin a phrase.

Many people are under the mistaken assumption that, if HUD "passes" it, then all must be ok. That's why it is always good to have and independent, objective inspection done by a NACHI professional!!

[James H. Bushart]

The best way to describe it, I think, is like this:

When the government inspects your lunch meat, up to a certain amount of rat feces is considered acceptable.

When you hire me to inspect your sandwich, I will report any amount of rat feces discovered as being unacceptable.

Government standards are usually much lower than the average consumer, which is why many home inspectors oppose state licensing...but that is another thread.

[Curious Pittsburgher]

I think I understand what you're saying. I did go into the deal expecting more detail (and problems found) from our inspector. What I wasn't expecting was that the electical system, noted as "modern" by the HUD inspector to actually contain several live knob and tube circuits as well as scads of additional dangerous wiring defects.

Also - the roof that was described as "satisfactory" by the HUD inspector was classified as "failed" by our inspector who says the asphalt shingles are so deteriorated and crumbled that the only thing stopping rainwater from pouring into the attic is the tarpaper underneath.

The house has a hipped roof with a low pitch and is very difficult to see from less than a half block away. I wonder if the HUD inspector even used a ladder to take a look before declaring it "satisfactory".

Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe tarpaper under crumbling asphalt is "satisfactory" by HUD standards?

There are a host of other problems and code violations but the wiring and roof are two of the most expensive and most disparate between the two inspections. It's not a matter of time either - the inspections were done within 60 days of each other.

[Thomas E. Speerstra]

I took the HUD certification classes ('spensive) and I can tell you the answer to your question is "yes" A home inspection and a HUD inspection are WORLDS apart.

If you are interested in a liveable home for your self . . . go with a certified residential inspector . . . preferably NACHI certified.

TS

[Curious Pittsburgher]

Thank you both for your replies. I don't know if the inspector we hired is NACHI certified or not. His report seemed very thorough to us. He's a member of ASHI and NSPE and has a degree in engineering.

We're buying the house anyway - we just have to rearrange our budget and priorities. The cosmetics can wait, right?

[jbreazeale]

Bushart, I have to say I like your analogies. Just had to get that licensing dig in there, didn't ya?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbreazeale

Bushart, I have to say I like your analogies. Just had to get that licensing dig in there, didn't ya?

Always.

[whandley]

Also - the roof that was described as "satisfactory" by the HUD inspector was classified as "failed" by our inspector who says the asphalt shingles are so deteriorated and crumbled that the only thing stopping rainwater from pouring into the attic is the tarpaper underneath.

That's how roofs are designed. The outer or finished roofing material normally is there to protect the underlayment which provides the waterproof protection to the structure. If the shingles were damaged to the point were the underlayment and or sheathing is exposed, an appropriate repair is in order.

[Curious Pittsburgher]

Thanks for the clarification, Will. Perhaps I stated it incorrectly when paraphrasing our inspector. Apparently the asphalt shingles are not protecting the underlayment and need to be replaced right away.

We are having the roof redone immediately after settlement. Hoping actually for the tear off to start as soon as the paperwork is signed.

I think I'm getting over the initial shock of comparing our inspection report to the HUD inspection report. It didn't seem like the two could be talking about the same house!