Standards question

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Perhaps TREC got it more right when defining a "Deficiency"

Actually TREC copied correctly from the exiled commitee then amended it to empower Enforcement. They deleted inspector judgement. Version V63 rejected wrote:

Deficiency -- A condition adversely and materially affecting the performance of a system or component, as judged by the inspector. General deficiencies include but are not limited to: Inoperability, material distress, interior water penetration, damage, deterioration, missing parts and unsuitable installation.

I attribute most of that skilled technical writing to a deposed commitee member who lives in Roundrock. The original draft was butchered by IC and TREC staff when they intentionally eliminated inspector judgement. They allow judgement in other areas but were so afraid of the phrase they tempered it intentionally with the word "reasonable". You and I both know that TREC determines what is reasonable in a complaint and the best expert determines it in the public venue.

Originally Posted by mboyett

Here, a defect affects the performance not the value. Value is left up to the client, Realtor and appraiser. Right?

Yes and that is what started me down this path. I was trying to determine the definition of material. Texas uses the word without definition.

NACHI has a definition and it ties in the concept of value. I see problems with that. Texas does not address value except with a limitation that does not directly refer to the word material.

The age of an item can also play a confusing role.

In the end it alls comes down to how you present the case to the claims underwriter (and TREC if there is a TREC complaint).

The TREC SoP are poorly written. They empower staff to define undefined requriements after the fact. A claims manager is going to shrug their shoulders and write the check.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jcahill

You and I both know that TREC determines what is reasonable in a complaint and the best expert determines it in the public venue.

The TREC SoP are poorly written. They empower staff to define undefined requriements after the fact. A claims manager is going to shrug their shoulders and write the check.

No argument from me there. But, back to the original question. It would seem reasonable to me that INACHI's SOP should address the performance of systems, not the "impact on value of the real property".

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

No argument from me there. But, back to the original question. It would seem reasonable to me that INACHI's SOP should address the performance of systems, not the "impact on value of the real property".

I'll stop short of saying what they or anyone should or should not do and let the SoP commitee consider those arguments.

IMO material should be performance related that, if in the judgement of the inspector, it has a significant impact on normal use. Somewhere in that the cost of repair has to play a part. Discovering what is important to the client is the trick.

The biggest mistake home inspection makes is quoting a fixed price. If we charged by the hour the customer would tell us to skip the minor crap in a hurry. I am charging by the hour on all homes over 5,000 feet or any home older than 30 years now.

[Dennis McAuley]

Good discussion, but it appears to be a discussion of perception. Sort of a question like, Is the glass half full or half empty? I say do your best inspection for all clients and the issue shouldn't arise.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by dmcauley

Good discussion, but it appears to be a discussion of perception. Sort of a question like, Is the glass half full or half empty? I say do your best inspection for all clients and the issue shouldn't arise.

Or at least a discussion with varied opinion. That is what I like about the forum. I hear opinions that I have not thought of and it starts another logic process for me.

According to two underwriting sources I work for, inspectors get sued 1 out of 1,000 inspections. The average claim is less than 10,000. The average settlement less than that. In Texas there were about 120 claims per year (1 out of 55,000 homes sold). Since insurance became mandatory this year the complaints are 120 in the 1st three months. 400% increase. Could be economy related. I do not have a tally on the number of lawsuits.

The perception is the risk of lawsuit seems low. The settlement seems low. The vagueness of the SoP keeps experts modestly busy. Most inspectors try to do a great job. InterNACHI has provided great tools for improvement.


This all started with my quest to understand the InterNACHI definition of material. I agree with a prior post. Write up “everything” you see and let them sort it out. Thanks for the interaction.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by jcahill

I do not see the door bell as a reporting requirement in the InterNACHI SoP. It is a requirement in the Texas SoP. Without some limiting language regarding exceeding the SoP I would be led to think you exceed the InterNACHI SoP routinely.

Perhaps a linguistic difference, however, checking the doorbell is not "exceeding" the SOP. It isn't in there in the first place. What is the accepted standard for checking the doorbell?

[Gary L. Farnsworth, CMI]

It is up to you, and your attorney.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by jcahill

This all started with my quest to understand the InterNACHI definition of material. I agree with a prior post. Write up “everything” you see and let them sort it out. Thanks for the interaction.

Nick once said that "material" and "major" were interchangeable.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by bwiley

Nick once said that "material" and "major" were interchangeable.

Well I need to get some roofing major for my project next weekend.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Well I need to get some roofing major for my project next weekend.

Yep, and my uncle was a Seargent Material in the Army!

I suppose I should have added "in the definition of a defect as far as the SOP is concerned". but then you wouldn't have been able to crack a joke!

[Gary L. Farnsworth, CMI]

http://www.keithswift.com/

If anyone of you has yet to read Dr. Swift's Inspect and Protect, you are missing half of your inspection business. This book should be required reading before anyone becomes an inspector. I have used several of his examples in all of my reports for years, with never a complaint. He spells it out right, on most all areas of any home.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by gfarnsworth

http://www.keithswift.com/

If anyone of you has yet to read Dr. Swift's Inspect and Protect, you are missing half of your inspection business. This book should be required reading before anyone becomes an inspector. I have used several of his examples in all of my reports for years, with never a complaint. He spells it out right, on most all areas of any home.

Opinions Vary.

[James H. Bushart]

I agree, Blaine.

Paranoia, combined with 42 pages of disclaimers, does more to make an inspector look guilty, IMO.

[Gary L. Farnsworth, CMI]

I just have 6 pages, and a paragraph or two at the head of very section of my reports. One for roof, one for foundation, one for exterior, one for HVAC, etc. Inspectors using software need to put into their reports some of these disclaimers. Read a Comcast disclaimer book when you sign up for cable. It is 22 pages. Buy a home, sign dozens of pages, one verifies your signature on another page. Disclaimers are now the norm. Read a magazine, see a drug add, see the next full page of legal mumbo-jumbo.

[Nick Gromicko]

There is no conflict.

An inspector is free to determine that a 250lb wrecking ball smashing into the side of the home would have a significant, adverse impact on the value of the property WITHOUT having to calculate the market value or marketability of the property (which has to do with comps, market, location, curb appeal, school system, etc.)