NACHI attorney warning!!!

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Mario, no. It doesn't work backwards. Much of our SOP revolves around code, just like much of the damage we mighg find comes from WDO. That doesn't mean our home inspections are code inspections or are WDO inspections.

Nick

I'm not suggesting that HI's conduct "code inspections" All I'm saying is that being BCQ in Canada or ICC qualified in the States is not a bad thing if properly used. It's a great asset. No?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mkyriacou

Just out of curiosity guys for health and safety issues, where do you get or establish guidelines? Is it not from the building code?

Being Building Code Qualified here in Ontario is a great addition to being a Certified Home Inspector if used properly. For example: If we are inspecting a house that has no railings for a deck that is 4' above grade should we not quote the building code [guidelines] as to why a railing is needed? Do we just wing it and say Hmm... I think you need a 2x4 here just in case you trip you have something to hold to prevent a fall.

You must know the building standards[code] before you make a recommendation plain and simple. I don't think this qualifies as exceeding SOP. I think this qualifies as professionalism.

I do not do code inspections I do safety inspections .
If the railing is dangerous I write it up and make sure they know it is dangerous.
Knowing code is great but what was the code when that home was built in many things they are very different.
So it just becomes more awkward when a person says well that was code when this home was built .

A patio door opening unto the deck that is going to be built next year ( Maybe ) to me is a hazzard I better not miss it .
Write Hard Talk soft and miss nothing .
Roy Cooke

[Brian E. Kelly]

Doug excellent posts regarding exceeding SOP's, I have already removed the words E&O form my web site and am now going to comb through it and make sure I am not making promises I do not wish to keep.

Mario, you can right up non code compliant issues by using the words "Common Safety Requirements" in place of the word code. Remember we are making safety/maintenance/repair recommendations not enforcing code requirements.

Peter, I include hard copy of the AZ State SOP in every report and mention it as I go over the report with the client/s.

All in all this thread has been some good information for me. Thanx all

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Originally Posted by rcooke

I do not do code inspections I do safety inspections .
If the railing is dangerous I write it up and make sure they know it is dangerous.
Knowing code is great but what was the code when that home was built in many things they are very different.
So it just becomes more awkward when a person says well that was code when this home was built .

A patio door opening unto the deck that is going to be built next year ( Maybe ) to me is a hazzard I better not miss it .
Write Hard Talk soft and miss nothing .
Roy Cooke

Roy

Your missing my point. All Health and Safety issues that you write up [or most] are all addressed in the building code. All I'm saying is that being BCQ is a plus for the Profession that we are in.

Example; The other day you posted that you write Laundry chutes as a safety issue, when that chute was installed in the new home 20 years ago the Building Code was fine with it, today you write it up as a safety issue. Why? Are you not in affect doing a Code Inspection?
I like Peter D. perspective on this "Not up to today's standards" But in order to make a comment like this you must know the code.

Roy thanks for the green square the other day!!!

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Doug excellent posts regarding exceeding SOP's, I have already removed the words E&O form my web site and am now going to comb through it and make sure I am not making promises I do not wish to keep.

Mario, you can right up non code compliant issues by using the words "Common Safety Requirements" in place of the word code. Remember we are making safety/maintenance/repair recommendations not enforcing code requirements.

Peter, I include hard copy of the AZ State SOP in every report and mention it as I go over the report with the client/s.

All in all this thread has been some good information for me. Thanx all

Brian

I never quote code, but I base my recommendations based on code. and I do like the term " Common Safety Requirements" or " Not up to today's Standards" Thanks.



</IMG>

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

[quote=mkyriacou]Roy

Your missing my point. All Health and Safety issues that you write up [or most] are all addressed in the building code. All I'm saying is that being BCQ is a plus for the Profession that we are in.

Example; The other day you posted that you write Laundry chutes as a safety issue, when that chute was installed in the new home 20 years ago the Building Code was fine with it, today you write it up as a safety issue. Why? Are you not in affect doing a Code Inspection?
I like Peter D. perspective on this "Not up to today's standards" But in order to make a comment like this you must know the code.

quote]
What I would like to know is how do we as home inspectors know that some thing was code 20 , 40 or more years ago .

This just becomes a big tangle that I could make an error on so easy that I refuse to get involved with code issues.

This is exactly why I did not renew my electricians license Sorry sir I do not know if this is up to todays code.

There are just too many codes to try and know .

I find an out side Propain Tank close to the drive way I recommend immediate installation of Ballards to protect the tank.

They do not do it and hit the tank and it goes Like gas explosion did In Toronto did last night I hope my ***** is covered.

Roy Cooke

Roy Cooke

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Joe M: I challenge you to post a single complaint that doesn't mention code. Fact is, the public still thinks we check to make sure everything is up to code and an inspector with "code certified" on his brochure is going to have one hell of a hard time arguing differently.

Do you not agree?

http://www.rongrazianolaw.com/CM/Pub...ousemaster.asp

No mention of code as part of the primary complaint.

Yes, many people have the idea that we check to code, but the public (in general) hold a great many misconceptions that do not hold weight in court.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

http://www.rongrazianolaw.com/CM/Pub...ousemaster.asp

No mention of code as part of the primary complaint.

Yes, many people have the idea that we check to code, but the public (in general) hold a great many misconceptions that do not hold weight in court.

That is a good link to read Joe... I have seen it before.

It is interesting that the president of House Masters did not have a
background in construction or inspections, but was trained in
marketing only..!

The courts caught him and his training brochures in the act of
misleading the public. On the one hand they would teach inspectors
to go easy on a house when a realtor needed to be pleased. Then
on the other hand, they would go hard on a house to help the
relo company pull down the purchase price of the house.

It was all about the subtle way things could be presented in order
to get the maximum return on repeat business and referrals...
even at the expense of the unknowing client, who suffered at
the hands of these predatory practices.

Here is the summery at the end:

HouseMaster's reports strum the chord of high hopes on the part of those consumers who, having already committed themselves, yearn for confirmation that they have made a wise decision. But its carefully couched and deliberately softened language fails to raise troubling issueswhich might challenge that decision. We reject Austin's characterization of this approach as "impartial." At the expense of the consumer, it favors sellers and the realtors *108 who represent them in the market place. In contrast, for the professional buyers of homes for the relocation market, the "big boys," a HouseMaster inspection picks out and reports every "nail pop" that could affect the judgment to buy. Such a stark difference in the approach to an "impartial" inspection is further evidence of unconscionable commercial practice.
In this case, HouseMaster's system of home inspection resulted in a report to the Herners which was so "balanced" as to render it pablum and worthless. Tangradi personified HouseMaster's marketing philosophy. His report told the Herners nothing important about the condition of **68 the house they had agreed to buy but undoubtedly pleased the realtor. In that respect it was affirmatively misleading. Of fifty-four items inspected, fifty-one were marked "Satisfactory", HouseMaster's highest rating, some with comments. None were marked "Poor." And yet within months of closing, the Herners were confronted by thousands of dollars of ascertainable loss in the form of repairs including the replacement of a roof near the end of its useful life.
We reverse. As a result of the judge's ruling, he did