Builder messed up, and blames me!

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

...and the client who owned them was a "realtor/flipper".

I think the violation of Article 9 of the COE is the first domino to fall.

Different house. I was only doing amold inspection on that house, not a home inspection,m under the Illinois definition.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Yep. Radon inspections, mold inspections and inspections on houses that are not under contract of sale are not covered by the Illinois law.

Hope this helps;

Will I see this as a huge problem. Is someone addressing this?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

It is like that in all licensed states. Each type of inspection is a different animal, so it cannot be governed together effectively . The only reason why home inspections are governed is because of deal killers such as Will.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by bboerner

Will I see this as a huge problem. Is someone addressing this?

No. Governmental agencies do not, at least not in Illinois. That is because the government is always behind the times. Legislators know nothing beyond getting re-elected. That is why there a lobbyists, and a Consitutional right to "Petition the government (i.e. Lobbyists).

And, until the government or some AHJ does institute and ENFORCE rules, there will always be people who try to find a loophole (like the mold remediation companies who also to sample testing, or the accredited labs who accept these remediation companies as clients) simply to make money.

There has not been enough state money to actually enforce the state laws, in Illinois, That is why there are non-licensed inspectors doing home inspections, as well as non-state licensed roofers and plumbers doing (and messing up) work in Illinois. That is also why builders, as previously described in this thread, are allowed to build crap buildings, sell them and simply be cable to walk away from the new owners find significant problems.

This is also why many houses, in my area, are being built by incompatent GCs and illegal (not licensed, not trained or qualified and illegal immigrant workers) and are, many times, becoming real POS's.

Everyone thinks that the "government" will protect them, without them having to pay, extra, for this protection. They are wrong. I see this, every week, when I have to try to explain to clients whose houses or condos are falling apart, (mold, water intrusion, strutural failure of the engineered floor joists (from water damage)) why the "government" (i.e. local code inspectors) did not protect them and have no legal (per state court rulings) liability.

I would like NACHI inspectors to work to a higher standard,

One point I would like to make, and this will not be well recieved.

NACHI has a COE and and SOP, which I comply with, BUT, any group who professes a standard, of any kind, has a moral duty to, proactivly, enforce the compliance with their standard.

Sadly, NACHI does not do this. They merely wait for someone (a client, a state or another inspector) to complain. Professional organizations (AMA, bar association, local or state or federal AHJs) are proactive, searching out and enforcing the rules.

I would love to see NACHI enforce, proactively (i.e., BEFORE the fact) their rules, the COE and the SOP. I would also like the COE to be better defined, so prolonged discusions like this would not be necessary.

To do otherwise is mere passive-aggressive behavior, and, by definition, a mental process defect.

Just my opinion.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbraun

It is like that in all licensed states. Each type of inspection is a different animal, so it cannot be governed together effectively . The only reason why home inspections are governed is because of deal killers such as Will.

I killed no deal. The contractor consultation was not part of any real estate contract in force, and the Realtor / Flipper mold inspection was just pointing out that the idiot did not remediate the mold problem professionally.

Hope this helps;

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Yep. Radon inspections, mold inspections and inspections on houses that are not under contract of sale are not covered by the Illinois law.

Hope this helps;

Radon and mold are not covered by IL HI law.

I would say that a maintannce inspection, also would not be.

IMO, a pre-listing inspection, when the seller orders an inspection in preparation for sale would be a home inspection under IL law.

The inspection is indeed facilitating the sale or conveyance of real property.

So, sorry Billy, no MIC inspections in IL for you.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Radon and mold are not covered by IL HI law.

I would say that a maintannce inspection, also would not be.

IMO, a pre-listing inspection, when the seller orders an inspection in preparation for sale would be a home inspection under IL law.

The inspection is indeed facilitating the sale or conveyance of real property.

So, sorry Billy, no MIC inspections in IL for you.

State case law and IDPFR rulings, as well as members of the state board and the board director have stated that is "in connection with or to facilitate the sale, lease, or other conveyance of, or the proposed sale, lease or other conveyance of, residential real property:" refers to a real estate contract of sale being in force.

So, if the property is "listed" but there is no conract of sale in effect, it is not, according to Illinois state law, a legally defined home inspection.

Be very careful with MIC inspections. If there is a contract of sale in effect, it is a home inspection under Illinois state law and the NACHI SOP and COE, which is subordinate to state law.

Also if you are doing rental inspections (as part of a lease) this is also a legal home inspection and must comply with the state and NACHI SOP and COE.

Hope this helps;

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Yep. Radon inspections, mold inspections and inspections on houses that are not under contract of sale are not covered by the Illinois law.

Hope this helps;

Is it listed for sale? or under contract?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by wdecker

I killed no deal. The contractor consultation was not part of any real estate contract in force, and the Realtor / Flipper mold inspection was just pointing out that the idiot did not remediate the mold problem professionally.

Hope this helps;

But you have in the past!

I am just pulling your chain, Will.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by wdecker

No. Governmental agencies do not, at least not in Illinois. That is because the government is always behind the times. Legislators know nothing beyond getting re-elected. That is why there a lobbyists, and a Consitutional right to "Petition the government (i.e. Lobbyists).

And, until the government or some AHJ does institute and ENFORCE rules, there will always be people who try to find a loophole (like the mold remediation companies who also to sample testing, or the accredited labs who accept these remediation companies as clients) simply to make money.

There has not been enough state money to actually enforce the state laws, in Illinois, That is why there are non-licensed inspectors doing home inspections, as well as non-state licensed roofers and plumbers doing (and messing up) work in Illinois. That is also why builders, as previously described in this thread, are allowed to build crap buildings, sell them and simply be cable to walk away from the new owners find significant problems.

This is also why many houses, in my area, are being built by incompatent GCs and illegal (not licensed, not trained or qualified and illegal immigrant workers) and are, many times, becoming real POS's.

Everyone thinks that the "government" will protect them, without them having to pay, extra, for this protection. They are wrong. I see this, every week, when I have to try to explain to clients whose houses or condos are falling apart, (mold, water intrusion, strutural failure of the engineered floor joists (from water damage)) why the "government" (i.e. local code inspectors) did not protect them and have no legal (per state court rulings) liability.

I would like NACHI inspectors to work to a higher standard,

One point I would like to make, and this will not be well recieved.

NACHI has a COE and and SOP, which I comply with, BUT, any group who professes a standard, of any kind, has a moral duty to, proactivly, enforce the compliance with their standard.

Sadly, NACHI does not do this. They merely wait for someone (a client, a state or another inspector) to complain. Professional organizations (AMA, bar association, local or state or federal AHJs) are proactive, searching out and enforcing the rules.

I would love to see NACHI enforce, proactively (i.e., BEFORE the fact) their rules, the COE and the SOP. I would also like the COE to be better defined, so prolonged discusions like this would not be necessary.

To do otherwise is mere passive-aggressive behavior, and, by definition, a mental process defect.

Just my opinion.

Will admits licensing solves nothing.
Come towards the light, Will.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Will admits licensing solves nothing.
Come towards the light, Will.

Well, with HI's licensed by the state and GC's, electricians, carpenters, masons, code inspectors and insulation guys not licensed and no testing, at least HIs find problems tyhat these un-licensed guys do not.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Well, with HI's licensed by the state and GC's, electricians, carpenters, masons, code inspectors and insulation guys not licensed and no testing, at least HIs find problems tyhat these un-licensed guys do not.

Wow.

Did you guys hear that?

In Illinois, home inspectors actually find things that code inspectors and contractors miss.

Have you ever heard of such a thing? Certainly nothing like that could ever happen in the remaining 49 states. And it's all because the Illinois inspectors pay the state an annual fee to be licensed.

Amazing.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Wow.

Did you guys hear that?

In Illinois, home inspectors actually find things that code inspectors and contractors miss.

More specifically, defects that code inspectors don't look for or that the local codes to not address. There are even some local codes that are just plain wrong and we are only now seeing this (i.e., roof decks and split faced block, single wythe walls).

I am sure that HIs in other, unlicesed states also find these things.

I am not pro nor anti licensing. I just recognize that we have it in Illinois and have to live with that fact.

At least it stops totally untrained and unqualified inspectors from doing business, unlike GCs, masons, carpenters, electricians, etc, in this state.

And, even though roofers and polumbers, in Illinois, are state licensed, there are plenty of people doing roofing and plumbing who are not licensed because the state does not have any enforcement provisions in place, as well as the fact that the public rarely checks out licensing or qualifications. They just want to hire the cheapest guy they can, as do the GCs.

I would say that state licensing, without enforcement, solves nothing.

[Frank Magdefrau]

Originally Posted by wdecker

As we walked around (the builder hired me) and I pointed out the problems (the builder was just a money guy, with no construction experience or expertize) the builder kept complaining that I was wrong.

Finally, he told me that the building was built correctly and I wasn't finding the real problems that was causing the water. He refused to pay me.

I said, "Hey, you hired me to bring my expertize and help you. If you don't like the truth, that is not my problem. When you get sued by the condo owners, you will see my report."

I then went and got th condo association President's number and will send him a letter with some of my preliminary findings and that I would be happy to do a transition inspection for them.

(Please don't take this as a fight I am starting with you, this is just based on the many fights you have had since you have worked for yourself and brought to this message board.)

Ok you have stated you were hired twice. Hired meaning this guy came too you for help.

He was unhappy with the service you provided him and did not pay.

Then you threatened him that the HOA will sue him because they are getting the report that you were going to give them.

So you went and got the HOA President number, called him to tell him what an idiot the builder is and got him all fired up to sue this guy. Plus you are sending a letter to do a transition inspection for them to get back at the client who refused to pay you.

In my opinion you have really screwed up and if this builder ever decides to get back at you, you will be up **** creek without a paddle. JMO.

Will for years I have been pointing out to you that you get into with way too many folks. You fight with Realtors, sellers, jury, judges, builders, buyers, and others and you come to this message board and boast how you are always right and how you always put these people in their place.

Personally and after nearly 4000 inspections I have only been in a hand full of disputes. I just listend to them and say I was sorry and walk away.

Your attitude towards people who disagree with you is catching up with you my friend. You are human and not always on the right side.

In other words I THINK YOU ARE WRONG on this one and should watch out.

Hope this helps;

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by fmagdefrau

(Please don't take this as a fight I am starting with you, this is just based on the many fights you have had since you have worked for yourself and brought to this message board.)

OK.

Ok you have stated you were hired twice. Hired meaning this guy came too you for help.

I would say that he offered to hire me. He wanted to find out the cause of the water. In retrospect, he now seemes to have been trying to cover his butt.

He was unhappy with the service you provided him and did not pay.

I would say that he was unhappy with my findings, but I will concede the point.

Then you threatened him that the HOA will sue him because they are getting the report that you were going to give them.

This, I believe, is the misunderstanding. Sure, I hope that the Condo Association will hire me and have me do a report (independent inspection and report. I never wrote a report for him because I was not paid, although I did make verbal comments). The report I was referring to when I last psoke to him was the independent report I would write if the association hired me.

Maybe I could write a report, for him and based upon the results of his inspection and wait for the HOA to subpena it from me.

So you went and got the HOA President number, called him to tell him what an idiot the builder is and got him all fired up to sue this guy. Plus you are sending a letter to do a transition inspection for them to get back at the client who refused to pay you.

No. I sent a letter to the president, stating that I had heard that he was having trouble and offereing my services. I have not, as of yet, mentioned the inspection that I did not complete for the builder. If I am hired by the HOA, I will, before I begin, disclose to them that I had previously inspected the property, for the builder, but that I cannot, ethically, disclose to him the results of that inspection unless I am subpenaed to do so by a court. I will further state that any inspection for the HOA will be a complety independent inspection and my findings and report will only be based upon their inspection. (Who knows, the builder may have fixed some stuff between then and the HOA inspection, if they hire me.)

In my opinion you have really screwed up and if this builder ever decides to get back at you, you will be up **** creek without a paddle. JMO.

My lawyer disagrees, but we will see. Maybe this conclusion of yours is based upon the false assumptions you seem to have made, and which I hope I have clarified, above.

Will for years I have been pointing out to you that you get into with way too many folks. You fight with Realtors, sellers, jury, judges, builders, buyers, and others and you come to this message board and boast how you are always right and how you always put these people in their place.

I am sorry you feel this way. I do not agree. I believe that many inspectors have disagreed with Realtors, sellers and builders, but that is not necessarily a fight, as you have characterized it.

I do not believe that I have ever "gotten into it" with a judge or a jury. I am not stupid.

When I pointed out, recently to a client that the dryer vbent hose was not proper (vinyl) and was not allowed for use with gas clothes dryers (per the CPSC and national fire codes), the builder overheard (he was there and the client had given me permission to speak in front of him) and claimed that "it was code" (i.e., City of Chicago code). I merely (without raising my voice or anything) that it was not approved my the CPSC and the national fire codes (and also not by the CIty fire code). I would characterize this as informing him, not fighting or "getting into it" with him.

Do you? Isn't it possibel to disagree without it becoming a fight?

Personally and after nearly 4000 inspections I have only been in a hand full of disputes. I just listend to them and say I was sorry and walk away.

I have a little over 1000 actual HIs, and about 400 consultatiions, like this. Do I "Dispute" the builder, sometimes? Yes. I disagree with his position, based upon the condition of the property and the defects. Almost always, the first one to raise their voice is the builder. I work very hard not to raise my voice or become contentious, although sometimes I have. (usually after they start theatening me with lawsuit or physical harm).

Maybe it is a Chicago thing. Haven't you ever had a builder or Realtor or seller that got angry at you?

Your attitude towards people who disagree with you is catching up with you my friend. You are human and not always on the right side.

Agreee. There have been wrong a couple of times where I was wrong. In those instances, I have appologized. I never claimed to be perfect. Just a human like everyone else.

In other words I THINK YOU ARE WRONG on this one and should watch out.

Hope this helps;

Please let me know if my clarifications have changed your opinion any.