Keith Swift and I are proposing a new Standards of Practice for the industry.

[Joe Farsetta]

I'll go back to my original comments.

Mr. Swift has a fine software package.

Mr. Swift has some general ideas on litigation that many do not subscribe to.

Mr. Swift crafted an SOP on his own, based on his cover letter to Nick.

No problem with any of it. But, just because someone who sells a product tells you something, doesnt make it true.

I have stated that the SOP can indeed evolve, IF it makes sense to do so, IF the industry supports it (meaning that it is not too far out of whack with the norm), and IF the membership (1) believes the changes are justified and (2) subscribes to proposed verbiage.

Currenty, there is an SOP committee. I have asked that this discussion be moved into members only. We wil certainly take input from the membership. The first question is whether or not anyone really believes that the SOP needs changing.

I submit that if it did, we would likely compare it to other ratified SOPs in use across the country and ammend it accordingly. That would be both prudent, and sensible. Of course, prior to undertaking any bulk or significant changes, we would consult with representatives of those insurance providers for input.

Sometimes, SOPs are created or changed for other reasons. For instance, here in NY, our Working Group, which is comprised of members from ASHI, NAHI, NYSAHI, ESAHI, and NACHI, is working on an alternate version of the SOP proposed by our HI Advisory Council. We are working with existing SOP verbiage from all associations (as well as COE language), and comparing it to what is in use in many other licensed states. We are choosing the best verbiage possible, based on what is real, and is enforceable, and which has been accepted by the insurance industry and court systems.

SOPs can be modified without adding un-needed verbiage to a single section. If the SOPs were so indefinsible, insurance companies would write their own for those they underwrite with E&O coverage, then mandate that covered inspectors use them. They have not done that. Common business practice indicates that insurance companies are in business to turn a profit. If SOPs were such crap, they's be losing money hand over fist. They apparently arent. I submit that is these SOPs were as ineffectual as we are being lead to believe, our insurers would not would not allow us to use them.

In retrospect, look at the ASTM Commercial Inspection. It is as generic and non-specific as anyone could imagine. As ASTM is undertaking an inspection standard for residential inspections, one could expect more of the same; eg: a generic, non-specific SOP for the HI industry. This may wind up as the defacto standard for all someday.

Let's keep the conversation going in members only.

[Joe Farsetta]

Keith points to verbiage regarding the inspection of retaining walls as if it is unique to NACHI, and states that an insurance company executive nearly had a heart attack when he learned of this.

Bottom line is that the identical verbiage has existed in the ASHI SOP for longer than our own.

I guess these guys dont get out much.

More of the same hype.

Look at state-mandated SOPs across the land. See if it is also included.

We had a discussion on this very verbiage last Wednesday, and whether or not it should be included inthe NY State SOP.

More scare tactics?

[Joe Farsetta]

Just read John B's thread regarding his questions of interest in lower E&O costs...

It is surprising to learn that E&O claims (and payouts I suppose) are going down.

I say this, as Dr. Swift often states just the opposite. Didnt he claim that the NACHI SOP is so screwed up that it needs to be scrapped? Wow. Considering that these insurance companies were speaking to John, and know of our existing SOP, I'd have bet that they wouldnt touch one of our inspectors with a 10 foot pole...

But, hey, what the hell do I know?

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Keith points to verbiage regarding the inspection of retaining walls as if it is unique to NACHI, and states that an insurance company executive nearly had a heart attack when he learned of this.

Bottom line is that the identical verbiage has existed in the ASHI SOP for longer than our own.

I guess these guys dont get out much.

More of the same hype.

Look at state-mandated SOPs across the land. See if it is also included.

We had a discussion on this very verbiage last Wednesday, and whether or not it should be included inthe NY State SOP.

More scare tactics?

Illinois SOP, watered down ASHI SOP.
"grading, surface drainage, and retaining walls on the property when any of these are likely to adversely affect the building "

[Dale Duffy]

I feel that if someone cannot substantially follow either the NACHI or ASHI SOP's and just do a good inspection they should not be in this business in the first place.

The standards are just an industry standard, it takes the inspectors knowledge of the inspection business to just inspect the damn house from the top to the bottom, and don't miss anything in the middle.

Personally I don't give the standards a second thought when I'm inspecting anything, they are the last thing on my mind. I just inspect every building to the best of my ability and have never had a complaint, much less anyone even remotely considering a suit against me. I know many good inspectors in Arizona, and never once have I heard anyone tell me they have a serious problem with a client.

By simply writing what the house is made with, and documenting what is wrong, is a fairly easy job, don't rush yourself doing any part of the inspection, keep both eyes wide open, talk to your clients if they are at the inspection, explaining things in plain english, and finish the job with a narrative report with pictures of the deficiencies using words the average person understands, not inspector speak.

It is very important your client understands before the inspection, what you do, and how you do it, what you can do, and what you cannot do. Seeing inside a wall would be a simple example of what you can't do, I never had anyone have any problem with this.

So the standards really don't mean much to me, they are just the basis for what I'm going to do, and in my opinion don't need to be changed.

[Joe Farsetta]

My post goes to Dr. Swift's comments. Without much fanfare, I have discovered that a majority of licensed states have nearly the identical provision for the inspection of retaining walls, which Keith claims to have nearly caused a heart attack for an insurance company executive.

As to his comment with regard to NACHI's verbiage referring to baluster spacing, it's nearly verbatim from the TREC standards, which are the toughest in the nation, IMO.

I guess everyone else is guilty of what NACHI is guilty of; having a decent SOP.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by dduffy

I feel that if someone cannot substantially follow either the NACHI or ASHI SOP's and just do a good inspection they should not be in this business in the first place.

The standards are just an industry standard, it takes the inspectors knowledge of the inspection business to just inspect the damn house from the top to the bottom, and don't miss anything in the middle.

Personally I don't give the standards a second thought when I'm inspecting anything, they are the last thing on my mind. I just inspect every building to the best of my ability and have never had a complaint, much less anyone even remotely considering a suit against me. I know many good inspectors in Arizona, and never once have I heard anyone tell me they have a serious problem with a client.

By simply writing what the house is made with, and documenting what is wrong, is a fairly easy job, don't rush yourself doing any part of the inspection, keep both eyes wide open, talk to your clients if they are at the inspection, explaining things in plain english, and finish the job with a narrative report with pictures of the deficiencies using words the average person understands, not inspector speak.

It is very important your client understands before the inspection, what you do, and how you do it, what you can do, and what you cannot do. Seeing inside a wall would be a simple example of what you can't do, I never had anyone have any problem with this.

So the standards really don't mean much to me, they are just the basis for what I'm going to do, and in my opinion don't need to be changed.

This is the best post I have read so far on the entire message board.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Nice Dale.

Joe F we have the retao\ining wall part in our State issued SOP

ASTM will probably not be a player in HI SOP's in my lifetime.

[James H. Bushart]

Translation into modern business communication prose:

Originally Posted by kswift

I just returned from visiting at the Finger Lakes chapter in New York. I flew across America at 39000 feet, and from that height the land looked like a quilt my grandmother might have made: patches of brown, green, and gold, faded by time. What a change it was to go from a smoggy and noisy megalopolis to the clean clear air and peaceful lowlands of Elmira.

"I flew to Elmira, New York."

It was as though I was transported back in time to a village in England where I was given an old-world welcome and taken to a meeting on a boat on a river, where John Bowman, Mike Capalupo, and two insurance executives and I reminisced about how rapidly the industry has grown and changed in the last few years, and how weak and ineffectual our standards now seem.

"I met with four other guys and we discussed SOPs."

Change is essential, but many people resist it--some vehemently. I am reminded of Galileo who peered through his telescope and observed: “E pur si muove” (but it does move), and indeed it did, but he was punished for daring to say so. Not that I dare compare myself with Galileo: God knows I’ve never had an original thought in my life.

"I feel unappreciated."

It’s just that I saw the incursion of ASTM into our industry as a sentinel of things to come, decided to read our standards (for the first time, actually), and saw a document that is poorly written and of questionable value.

"Having not even read our SOP after years of NACHI membership, I finally did and thought I could do a better job, so I rewrote it."

For instance, I saw that inspectors shall “report as in need of repair electric furnaces which do not operate.” (2-4 1-B) Well, if they do not operate I guess they need to be repaired, but what about gas furnaces or oil furnaces? (Note: Nick may have already had these changed) Similarly, I saw that we were obligated to “report as in need of repair any spacings between intermediate balusters” that are greater than “four inches in diameter.” (2.2 1C) But how do you repair spacings? And if we’re going to apply this one specific detail of a very sensible code that’s intended to protect minor children why don’t we apply the standard that regulates the minimum height and width of the handrail? And if we’re genuinely concerned about safety, why is it that we don’t check to see if sliders have tempered glass. Haven’t we all heard about the thousands of horrible accidents caused by people walking into plate-glass sliders? Or, don’t we care? I think we do. Every inspector that I know does, and I’ll think you’ll find that our insurance carriers care even more. In fact, I thought that I was going to have to administer CPR to one insurance executive friend of mine when he realized that the NACHI standards require us to inspect “retaining walls.” (2.2 1E) However, these were just random follies that I noted, and which I casually pointed out to Nick in conversation to explain that I didn’t want to clean up the standards, but to rewrite them entirely.

"I found a few things that I think we need to address."

But, as I also told Nick, I have no ego invested in this; it was a rather simple exercise in discursive writing, and just a rough draft at that, which would need to be scrutinized by a committee involving industry leaders and attorneys. And, in truth, it was merely my way of doing something for Nick and the membership.

"I addressed them."

Regardless, change will come one way or another, and does it need to be pointed out that the eyes of the industry are upon NACHI? Change is essential to life and growth, and death has a way of letting us know when we’re done.

"Change is good. Get over it."

[jschulte]

Good post Dale,

Whats all the hub bub, bub?

[David A. Andersen]

For those of us that are familiar with military regulations, that is the way to design an SOP.

The military format has a long-standing track record.

It is my opinion that the more you say the more trouble you get yourself into. I see no reason to explain the SOP, in the SOP (better to be done in the report, as posted above). I could care less if the client "better understands" the SOP through "baby talk".

First of all it makes the thing too long. It's hard enough to get anybody to read something short.

All these added comments simply open us up to interpretation/misinterpretation by the client, the court and the home inspector.
I prefer the SOP to be vague (but directly to the point). "An inspector is not required to...", "an inspector will report..."
A vague but direct statement may leave us open to interpretation, however the more you say the more that is open for interpretation/misinterpretation!
Not, "an inspector will..., if, unless, as long as" Etc..

James B's: Changing the words "the inspector is not required to" to "an inspector shall not" , is extremely noteworthy. This is not the 10 Commandments. The only thing that the inspector "shall not" do is violate ethics and legal obligations.

Most association SOPs are relatively close. They are that way for a reason.

As someone asked, why are we changing this thing? Just to be different?
SOP = "standard" operating procedure. I call your attention to standardization.

As Nick pointed out, acceptance of a new standard and format will require evaluation and acceptance by all.

My review of this new standard left me with the impression that many of the same elements are present, nothing has significantly changed (as far as the intent of the SOP). Most of everything was just reworded in a more verbose manner.

I operate my business in a home inspection regulated state. I am required to adopt the state's SOP. However, even they allow deviation from the SOP in a bargained for inspection between the client and the inspector.

I feel that the SOP should lay out to the client what they should expect and what they should not expect from a home inspection. We don't have to explain why, we just have to explain what. When they ask if you tested the intercom system, you simply indicate it's a low voltage device and is outside the scope of inspection. Besides, it takes two inspectors to test an intercom. One to talk and one to listen.

Our SOP should be parallel to the industry standard, which means it is just like everybody else's. Just like building code requirements, they set the minimum standard across the board.
When two home inspection associations, have two completely different SOP's, end up facing off in the courtroom, how are these deviations going to be viewed?

Now, if you want to raise the industry standard by modifying a particular area of the SOP and it becomes acceptable by all and time tested...

I think a "better thing to say" is better than just "saying it better".

[John McKenna]

Can you imagine the ASTM SoP , if they come out with one?
It will probably be some of the most mind numbing verbiage you have ever seen.

[Justin Watts]

I think all of this discussion... postive and negative is good. As for the negative comments regarding the newly proposed SOP's...

I think Keith has great intentions of clearing any confusion among the SOP language, and simulataneoulsy informing clients of our inspection methods and reducing our liabilty...

I would say the most important SOP is having our client understand that it is nearly impossible to detect (every) single defect within a residence in an average 2 hour inspection (avearge size home 1500 square feet)

And that due diligence... making sure that the overall condition of the home and systems are safe for the occupants is our responsibility as inspectors.

The SOP's will be focused on by the attorneys if a lawsuit is filed against you, they will examine them and tear your inspection apart....

To those inspectors that do not like changing/revising the SOP's: You should not resist "positive" changes..... and we should all be blessed that "experts" in our field are here to offer their services and assist us.... The times are changing, our field is gaining more importance as homes begin to age and buyers and sellers want more, and more inspections....

Let's keep it positive and keep our industry and Association Strong!
www.americandreamhomeinspection.net

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jwatts1

To those inspectors that do not like changing/revising the SOP's: You should not resist "positive" changes

Justin, feel free to join in the discussion and propose whatever changes you have in mind.

[David A. Andersen]

Please post the positive issues that you perceive.

We are not damning the proposal or killing the messenger.
Just responding to the initial observations.