Charge separately for Thermal Imaging?

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

My inspection agreement states that I will do the inspection to the State SOP, and the (more stringent) NACHI SOP. If I do that, I have fulfilled the agreement and cannot be sued (at least not for not meeting that standard).

BUT, the inspection I do very much exceeds that standard.

- I check for gas leaks
- I use a CO detector on the furnace, water heater and other gas fired appliances
- If I can't get on the roof, I use binoculars
- I check the operation of the microwave (with my handy little NACHI microwave tester).
- I use a moisture meter to check for moisture behind bathroom tile, around the base of the toilet and in other places where I suspect moisture
- I take pictures of defects and include them in my report
- I check not only for polarity and grounding, but also voltage drop, conductor impeadence and the other things that a SureTest tests for.
- I use UV light to check for rodent trails and to check for active mold.

All these things exceed the SOP. Do I increase my 'liability' by doing this. No. In fact, I believe that most inspectors will agree that if you don't do at least some of these, you are in for a world of hurt.

IR is just one more tool. Sure, it is an expensive tool and requires extensive training to use properly, but it is just a tool.

If a tool helps me do a better job for my clients AND better covers my sorry butt, I cannot see any problem.

Why would a client sue you for doing a better job?

My lawyer agrees with this. Maybe it is a difference in state laws, but there is no increased liability in using IR.

Rebut?

Will,

There is no "rebut." You have made a business decision and there is no changing your mind.

I've made my business decision to use a seperate agreement, which seems to be the concenus.

I'm not going to attempt to change your mind, but will say that you are in the minority on this issue.

Happy inspecting

Kevin

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by krichardson

Will,

There is no "rebut." You have made a business decision and there is no changing your mind.

I've made my business decision to use a seperate agreement, which seems to be the concenus.

I'm not going to attempt to change your mind, but will say that you are in the minority on this issue.

Happy inspecting

Kevin

No problem, Kevin. Just having a friendly arguement.

I would ask you to ask your lawyer this question.

You probably advertise thermal imaging on your web site or on your card or some such.

You do an inspection. There is a leaky toilet that is dripping water in the 1st floor ceiling, but there is no visual evidence of this. In other words, in a regular inspection, you would never see it or call it out, but if you did a thermal scan, your probably would (this has happened to me a number of times).

Your client is cheap and doesn't want to pay extra for thermal imaging. You do your usual, good quality, regular inspection according to either your state's or NACHI's SOP (I don't know if your state has licensing or an SOP).

3 weeks after the clients move in, the paint on the ceiling starts to peel and lines in the drywall joints. 4 weeks after the inspection, the drywall starts to bulge. 5 weeks after the inspection, the client starts to notice. They check it out and find water (and, very likely, mold formation).

You get the call, "You did an inspection for our new house about 2 months ago. We have a leak into our dining room and it appears to be from the toilet (and, it's "Poopy Water", not just nice clean regular water). How come you didn't see this? What are you going to do about it? What is your E&O insurance carrier, so we can file a claim?

Your answer is, "But you didn't pay me extra to use the tool that I have that would have easily found it?"

My question is, would you use the same answer when they have you on the stand when they are suing you.

Ask your lawyer about that.

Not trying to convert you, just trying to help you look at all the possibilities.

As you say, your business is your business and my business is mine. Different people, different states, different markets, etc.

Hope this helps;

[Michael Larson]

Will,

From the scenario you shared,

if we also have the equipment to do mold sampling and radon measurement then these should also be part of our inspection to avoid liability.
Where does this end?
We seem to be in the process of redefining what a home inspection is.

JMHO by way of "friendly argument"

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Will,

From the scenario you shared,

if we also have the equipment to do mold sampling and radon measurement then these should also be part of our inspection to avoid liability.
Where does this end?
We seem to be in the process of redefining what a home inspection is.

JMHO by way of "friendly argument"

1) I don't do Radon testing, but I offer it to the client (through a sub).
2) If I see mold "red flags", I inform the client and ask if they want sampling. Whether they say yes or no, I have them sign off on the ESA form. No liability.

I don't know if I need TI untill I use it.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

1) I don't do Radon testing, but I offer it to the client (through a sub).
2) If I see mold "red flags", I inform the client and ask if they want sampling. Whether they say yes or no, I have them sign off on the ESA form. No liability.

I don't know if I need TI untill I use it.

Then why not have them sign a waiver like the ESA form to declime TI?
Wouldn't that be consistent business practice?

[William J. Decker]

Don't have a form.

Not every house has mold, but every house has (at least some) minor thermal anomolies.

Besides, the regular thermal pictures i take (underside of roof from attic, insulation slips, etc) look cool and, even in they are normal, they prove that the situation was normal at the time of the inspection. CYA.

Besides, I like to charge a little more. My regular inspection fee is in the 80% percentile, in my area. Besides, the images (in most cases) take no more time and actually help to speed up the process.

[John McKenna]

Ask the lawyer if he wants me to find the leaky toilet problem with
my IR camera or if he wants to pay the inspector who can't find it.?

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Ask the lawyer if he wants me to find the leaky toilet problem with
my IR camera or if he wants to pay the inspector who can't find it.?

What he said.

(Man, those Texas boys are real concise, ain't they?)

[jrivera]

Screw Driver, Flashlight
Screw Driver, Flashlight
Screw Driver, Flashlight

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jrivera

Screw Driver, Flashlight
Screw Driver, Flashlight
Screw Driver, Flashlight

Screwdriver, flashlight, marble.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Don't have a form.

Your lawyer can help you with that.

Not every house has mold, but every house has (at least some) minor thermal anomolies.

Not relevant IMHO

Besides, the regular thermal pictures i take (underside of roof from attic, insulation slips, etc) look cool and, even in they are normal, they prove that the situation was normal at the time of the inspection. CYA.

Sure they're cool, but that's irrelevent too.

Besides, I like to charge a little more. My regular inspection fee is in the 80% percentile, in my area. Besides, the images (in most cases) take no more time and actually help to speed up the process.

Charging more is great but what's the ROI on the equipment and training?

Are we redefining what a Home Inspection is?

[Nick Gromicko]

Reminder to members, add thermal imaging to www.nachi.org/ancillary.htm so that you are found on the internet.

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Reminder to members, add thermal imaging to www.nachi.org/ancillary.htm so that you are found on the internet.

Thanks for the reminder Nick!! I just did.

And as far as charging separately for TI I will be charging an extra fee for TI if asked to do only an TI. I have added $100 to my Home Inspection fee to cover the use of the camera and I now include a TI with all my Inspections.

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by mkyriacou

Thanks for the reminder Nick!! I just did.

And as far as charging separately for TI I will be charging an extra fee for TI if asked to do only an TI. I have added $100 to my Home Inspection fee to cover the use of the camera and I now include a TI with all my Inspections.

What is your fee for a standard inspection (including ITI) for a single family home around 2000 sq ft?

Just curious?

My fee is 429.00 and an additional 79.00 if they want to add the general ITI scan.

If I raised my prices up in the five hundred dollar range for every home that was around 2000 sq ft, I'm pretty sure that most of my "potential" clients will pass and go with a less expensive inspector.

It's much more profitable to let the client choose what additional services they want or need.

BTW....this is for all inspectors that offer ITI in a regular home inspection. Do you provide your client with a description of services or general infomation on what is involved in performing a scan on a home?

Are you proactively scanning the entire home looking for anomolies? Or, just use the camera when investigating an issue?

Kevin

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

No problem, Kevin. Just having a friendly arguement.

I would ask you to ask your lawyer this question.

You probably advertise thermal imaging on your web site or on your card or some such.

You do an inspection. There is a leaky toilet that is dripping water in the 1st floor ceiling, but there is no visual evidence of this. In other words, in a regular inspection, you would never see it or call it out, but if you did a thermal scan, your probably would (this has happened to me a number of times).

Your client is cheap and doesn't want to pay extra for thermal imaging. You do your usual, good quality, regular inspection according to either your state's or NACHI's SOP (I don't know if your state has licensing or an SOP).

3 weeks after the clients move in, the paint on the ceiling starts to peel and lines in the drywall joints. 4 weeks after the inspection, the drywall starts to bulge. 5 weeks after the inspection, the client starts to notice. They check it out and find water (and, very likely, mold formation).

You get the call, "You did an inspection for our new house about 2 months ago. We have a leak into our dining room and it appears to be from the toilet (and, it's "Poopy Water", not just nice clean regular water). How come you didn't see this? What are you going to do about it? What is your E&O insurance carrier, so we can file a claim?

Your answer is, "But you didn't pay me extra to use the tool that I have that would have easily found it?"

My question is, would you use the same answer when they have you on the stand when they are suing you.

Ask your lawyer about that.

Not trying to convert you, just trying to help you look at all the possibilities.

As you say, your business is your business and my business is mine. Different people, different states, different markets, etc.

Hope this helps;

This is a very weak scenario at best. This could happen to ANY inspector regardless if you have a camera or not. You can play "what if" games all day long.

The bottom line is this:

If you are providing your client with a general scan of the home and not using the camera as a tool to confirm or further investigate a finding, then you are going well beyond the SOP and giving your client an additional service.

Are you providing your client with a description of services for a general scan? What's involved in scaning a home looking for thermal anomolies? Why did you scan the underside of the roof and ceiling areas, but not the rest of the house?

These questions should be answered in a description of services and general information document and pre-inspection agreement.

Kevin

ps...Will, your wrong!! My answer to the client in the above scenario would have been..."A home inspection is a snapshot in time and if there was no visual evidence of the leaky toilet, then there is no way I could have predicted the furture." I would not have even brought up ITI.