Looking for some advice.

[Todd Stromdahl]

I received a phone call today from a buyer that I performed an inspection for last Monday, He asked me if I would come out and re-inspect after repairs had been made to several roof trusses that had been damaged during construction (broken webs and damaged gusset plates). The question is has anyone ever had to deal with this, I stated on the phone that I was not a Structural engineer and that the person that designed the repair would be my choice to inspect the work. Is this a realistic expectation, will an engineer come out and inspect after repairs are made. Has anyone ever inspected a repair and reported that the repairs made are in accordance to the designs provided by the engineer. I don’t feel like I want to be the one that take all the liability for this repair, but I would like to provide the best customer service that I can. Just not sure how to handle this and I’m looking for some advice. Thanks.

[William E. Siegel]

The engineer who disigned those repairs needs to issue a letteer stating that they were repaired in accordance with the design plans. End of story.

You are not the engineer. If you go out there, you had better be ready to own that home. If your client does not like what he sees in those repairs, then let him hire an independent structural engineer to inspect them.

[Jeffrey R. Jonas]

Originally Posted by wsiegel

The engineer who disigned those repairs needs to issue a letteer stating that they were repaired in accordance with the design plans. End of story.

You are not the engineer. If you go out there, you had better be ready to own that home. If your client does not like what he sees in those repairs, then let him hire an independent structural engineer to inspect them.

I concur.

[Todd Stromdahl]

Thank you, just needed someone to tell me what I already know. I want to do the right thing for both my customers and myself. Not having dealt with this before I wasn't sure of the right way to deal with it.

[rcooke]

Good call You reported the defect.
I would not coment on the repair .
Roy Cooke

[Donald T. Belmont]

Originally Posted by tstromdahl

I received a phone call today from a buyer that I performed an inspection for last Monday, He asked me if I would come out and re-inspect after repairs had been made to several roof trusses that had been damaged during construction (broken webs and damaged gusset plates). The question is has anyone ever had to deal with this, I stated on the phone that I was not a Structural engineer and that the person that designed the repair would be my choice to inspect the work. Is this a realistic expectation, will an engineer come out and inspect after repairs are made. Has anyone ever inspected a repair and reported that the repairs made are in accordance to the designs provided by the engineer. I don’t feel like I want to be the one that take all the liability for this repair, but I would like to provide the best customer service that I can. Just not sure how to handle this and I’m looking for some advice. Thanks.

I suppose I'm influenced by having worked for a truss company so know how repairs get specified. I'm willing to examine a repair but I report it like I would report most everything. Lots of pictures and careful wording in terms of what I see.

The point is I'm not offering an opinion on whether the repair work is adequate. Nor should any home inspector. I'm just judging if from a visual examination I can document whether the repairs were done in accordance with the drawings and specs from the engineer.

For example the engineeer might have specified a certain grade of lumber (actually common). If the grade stamp is visible I can take a picture and document that the grade stamp agreed with what was required. Usually on a truss repair a nailing or bolting pattern will be specified. I believe I can document that the pattern was done IAW what was required. (or not or say it was not determinable).

Key point , at no time do I state an opinion on whether the repair is correct in terms of design or execution. I report on whether it conforms to the requirements and I can document that it conforms to what was specifed.

Neither I nor my attorney believe I incur any liabilty for the design as I didnn't create it.

Nor for the execution of the repair as I didn't do that either.

All I did was document what was done without guessing or any interpretation at all. So the liabilty remains on those who did the work and those who designed the work.

Now if I did something stupid like inspect a truss repair that called for 10' of #1 SYP and the carpenter used 8' of #1 spuce and I said it was OK. Now I own the deal.

But if I say (as I should) the spec called for #1 SYP but you used spuce so I am writing down that what you did does not agree with what was specified. (Note I didn't say it wouldn't work. That's not my pay grade).

[William J. Decker]

It is amazing that SEs and GCs and the (hopefully!) licnesed subs will never back uo their work, in writing and under their liabilty.

Yet, the clients expect an HI to report (under their liabilty!!!) that the repair is OK.

It is all about the Freakin' liabilty! that is the key.

Make the big fee guys earn their fees!

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

I'm willing to examine a repair but I report it like I would report most everything. Lots of pictures and careful wording in terms of what I see.

I would do the same.

Originally Posted by dbelmont

The point is I'm not offering an opinion on whether the repair work is adequate. Nor should any home inspector. I'm just judging if from a visual examination I can document whether the repairs were done in accordance with the drawings and specs from the engineer.

For example the engineeer might have specified a certain grade of lumber (actually common). If the grade stamp is visible I can take a picture and document that the grade stamp agreed with what was required. Usually on a truss repair a nailing or bolting pattern will be specified. I believe I can document that the pattern was done IAW what was required. (or not or say it was not determinable).

Key point , at no time do I state an opinion on whether the repair is correct in terms of design or execution. I report on whether it conforms to the requirements and I can document that it conforms to what was specifed.

Neither I nor my attorney believe I incur any liabilty for the design as I didnn't create it.

Nor for the execution of the repair as I didn't do that either.

All I did was document what was done without guessing or any interpretation at all. So the liabilty remains on those who did the work and those who designed the work.

Now if I did something stupid like inspect a truss repair that called for 10' of #1 SYP and the carpenter used 8' of #1 spuce and I said it was OK. Now I own the deal.

But if I say (as I should) the spec called for #1 SYP but you used spuce so I am writing down that what you did does not agree with what was specified. (Note I didn't say it wouldn't work. That's not my pay grade).

Exactly. Very, very good.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wdecker

It is all about the Freakin' liabilty! that is the key.

And that's where good wordsmithing comes in handy, as Don eloquently noted in his post.

If one is afraid of inspecting repairs, one should never inspect a newly constructed house that has never been lived in since everything in the house at that point was done by licensed and/or qualified professionals and has various warranties and guarantees associated with it. If one inspected that newly constructed house, would one "own it" then? I would submit not.

[William E. Siegel]

I disagree. Our job is to find the defects. The professionals job is to repair those defects.

On new homes, we are doing the same as on re-sales, we are listing defects. The repairs are then done by the GC and documented by the GC. In both cases we are listing code violations, whether we want to admit it or not.

If an air conditioner needs service, are you going to go back and say that the AC company fixed it properly. I will not. What if it breaks down two weeks later. Same thing with a roof. A repair is done. How do we know it is done properly? Unless you are an engineer, I would not be going out and telling them that their work is done correctly and accordance to the plans.

[Andrew Cox]

I don't think there is any increased liability in reporting that the repaired component is now repaired.
If the defect had been discovered and the repair made before your initial inspection, you would report the condition... why can't an inspector make the determination simply that the repair is now made?

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wsiegel

If an air conditioner needs service, are you going to go back and say that the AC company fixed it properly.

Yes. Too many times it is not fixed properly, and sometimes it is not even fixed at all. My Clients need that information, and I'm the only one willing to provide it. Another common problem is that homeowners can do their own repairs, and quite often do, so it's necessary for someone to go out and check to see if there are receipts, and if there are, to note what repair work was claimed to have been done, and then to check to see if the claim that work was done is true. Once again, I'm the only one my Clients can rely on for that information. Why would I want to fail them now after having spent so much time and effort establishing that all-important Client relationship at the original inspection? Clients rule! If it's legal and ethical, I'm going to try my darndest to meet the needs of my Clients.

Originally Posted by wsiegel

What if it breaks down two weeks later.

Then they call the people who made the repair, presuming, of course, that there are receipts for the repairs.

Originally Posted by wsiegel

Same thing with a roof. A repair is done. How do we know it is done properly?

The same way you know that one was built properly in the first place on a newly constructed home that has never been lived in: by looking at it? This is, after all, a visual observation industry.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by acox

I don't think there is any increased liability in reporting that the repaired component is now repaired.
If the defect had been discovered and the repair made before your initial inspection, you would report the condition... why can't an inspector make the determination simply that the repair is now made?

Very true, and something that I've pointed out often on this board. For example, let's say that the seller had a pre-listing inspection and then, four weeks later, we do a buyer's inspection. Are we not inspecting repairs that were done, or claimed to have been done, and the adequacy of those repairs, within the limitations of a home inspection, Standards of Practice, etc.? I would submit that yes, we are.

Charge for re-inspections! It's free money. After all, you've already got a Client who adores you. Why abandon that Client now? The more you can HELP that Client, the more likely that Client is to refer you to his family, friends, and business acquaintances. I charged half the cost of the original inspection, and I had 27% of my Clients request the re-inspections. That means that 27% of what would have been a $299 inspection turned into a $449 inspection. That's $4,050 annually. Pays for a lot of gas!

[Ben L. Garrison]

If you're carrying, dare I say, E&O insurance I suggest that make sure that the re-inspection is covered. Most will not. I HIGHLY recommend that your attorney draft up some language to include in your PIA that explains the scope of the re-inspection, what you're doing and more importantly, what you're NOT doing. There was an inspector who posted the section of his PIA as it pertains to the re-inspection on the message board. It was very well written. Too bad I don't recall who it was.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by bgarrison

If you're carrying, dare I say, E&O insurance I suggest that make sure that the re-inspection is covered. Most will not. I HIGHLY recommend that your attorney draft up some language to include in your PIA that explains the scope of the re-inspection, what you're doing and more importantly, what you're NOT doing. There was an inspector who posted the section of his PIA as it pertains to the re-inspection on the message board. It was very well written. Too bad I don't recall who it was.

Hey, Ben.

I presume that FREA does not cover a re-inspection. Would they cover an inspection of repairs in an ordinary inspection that were done by the seller a day prior to the inspection? Why or why not? Would it not be the same? The seller would disclose the repairs and present receipts to my Client, just like they would do at a re-inspection.