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

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

. . .and my father and brother-in-law are Real Estate Attorneys

I might just consider helping out on this one if you'll have me.

[Joe Farsetta]

The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors (NACHI) is the largest organization of inspectors in the nation, and is dedicated to advancing the cause of consumers and its membership through education. The purchase of a property is typically the most significant investment that most consumers will ever make, and that investment needs to be protected. As a consequence, thousands of inspections are conducted daily that result in the production of legal documents, such as inspection reports, contracts, and a variety of agreements, and it is essential therefore that consumers understand what a property inspector does, and what is specifically excluded in inspections.

NACHI property inspectors are professional individuals who, in consideration of a fee, agree to accept the considerable responsibility of evaluating and reporting on the complicated and interrelated conditions and components that comprise a property. However, the service they perform needs to be clearly understood, for practical, ethical, and legal purposes. To borrow an example from medicine, a NACHI property inspector is comparable to a general practitioner, who has learned a lot about the human body and medicine but who has not specialized in any one particular discipline. Similarly, NACHI inspectors know a lot about the building trades, such as roofing, plumbing, heating and air-conditioning, and electrical, but they are not licensed as specialists. In fact, like general practitioners, it is their specific responsibility to defer to such specialists. And for this reason, property inspections are limited in their scope.

NACHI property inspections are non-invasive and visual and intended to alert consumers to material defects that exist at the time of an inspection, and which could significantly affect the value of a property or pose a threat to health or safety. However, a property inspection is not technically exhaustive, and is not intended to be, and will not reveal every single defect. For this reason, a property inspection and report should never be used as a substitute for the seller’s transfer disclosure, or construed to be an insurance policy, warranty, or guarantee. Some defects may be latent, and/or become apparent at a later time, which is why inspections have been sensibly characterized as "snapshots in time." And it is essential that consumers understand this and, thereby, have reasonable expectations. However, the terms "non-invasive" and "visual" could be misunderstood and need to be defined more clearly. For example, an inspector may probe a wooden surface in order to better identify termite or dry rot damage, and this could be said to be invasive. Similarly, removing the interior cover from an electrical panel could also be said to be invasive, and inserting an electrical tester into a wall outlet could be construed as being more than a visual examination. Regardless, most inspectors remove cover panels and use a combination of specialized instruments in the service of their clients, such as spirit or laser levels, electrical testers, carbon-monoxide testers, and even infra-red thermometers, to mention the more common ones, but the use of such instruments does not distinguish them as specialists; only a licensing authority can confer that distinction. NACHI inspectors adhere to clearly defined and public standards of practice unless otherwise agreed upon by mutual consent or contractual obligation, and to this extent NACHI standards are legally binding.

The items highlighted in red are absolutely and totally absurd. The first section actually compares our profession to that of a medical professional. The second highlighted section states that removal of panel covers and the use of specialized equipment (named) are done by "most" inspectors. Expectations are being incorrectly set here. Finally, we are stating that the NACHI standards, and are legally binding. Really? Says who? In licensed states, the State-mandated SOP trumps all. These opening paragraphs have NO business being in any SOP. We are compared to other professions (not necessary at all, so why do it?). Expectations are clearly set as to what inspectors do (like removing dead front covers and using specialized test equipment (named). Finally, at the end, we state that these standards (just established) are legally binding. I will NOT follow ANY of this.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Joe, I'm sure we're all interested in what you have to say. I certainly am, but try to restrain from meaningless hyperbole like "absolutely and totally absurd." That's a little rich, don't you think? Couldn't you say something more conducive to a continuing dialogue?

[Joe Farsetta]

Keith,

There is already an ethics and standards of practice committee, whose charter is it to review the proposed doc. Jeff belonged to the committee at one time, and we'd love to have him back. I'll leave it there for now. I find the opening sequences to be absurd. I found the following sections to take verbiage straight out of PV software, which I also have problems with. Not everyone subscribes to the idea that one can simply disclaim everything. You preface each section with boilerplate mumbo jumbo. Leave that stuff for the report, not the SOP.

An SOP should be short and straight to the point. The document you crafted has some serious flaws, both in content and purpose. I could not follow it, at all, and would be forced to adopt the ASHI SOP instead. It is over the top, sets expectations, and I believe puts a noose around the neck of anyone who subscribes to it.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Jeff,
Love to have someone like you on the "committee," with a level head and a clear mastery of codes, but I'm not even on it.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Joe,
why "mumbo jumbo." Are you always this emotional and judgmental?

[Joe Farsetta]

Keith,

I'm trying to be diplomatic, here. You DO underatand english. Its not hyperbole. Its an accurate description of what you included in this SOP. Its unnecessary mumbo-jumbo.

You have your opinion as to the type of nonsense that belongs in an inspection report. My opinion, as well as the opinion of several attorneys, is that much of it is meaningless.

We will have ESOP members review it and comment on it. We wil then share it with Nick. I can tell you this, IMO one would be out of their mind to include much of this in their SOP. As NACHI's COE dictates that one should substantially follow the NACHI SOP, we have a quandry; the SOP you wrote is so far removed from others, that one could not substantially follow it of one were to follow any other SOP.

I am baffled as to what the need to re-invent the wheel was. Tell me what was wrong with the NACHI SOP, which has been in effect for over 4 years, and the need to dump it in favor of this. Are you stating that it is flawed, and that following it will recult in an inspector being sued?

If so, show me.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Joe, your criticism is not constructive, it's abusive, but I don't think that you realize that. This is not cast in stone, no one has said that it will be adopted, and we'll have to wait and see what the consensus is. Regardless, we fully intend that this debate include attorneys and inspectors alike.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The other smaller problem (compared to E&O approval) is that NACHI and NACHI members have been beatin' the hell out of every plaintiff in court, in part again, by pointing to our existing SOP. It might be a case of turbo charging a sports car from 600hp to 635hp.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Illinois.

[James H. Bushart]

Most software vendors are working hard to bring their product in line with NACHI's SOP. This appears to be an attempt by a vendor to bring NACHI's SOP in line with their software, IMO.

Here is one very quick observation that jumped off the page before having a chance to actually review the document, item by item.

Changing the words "the inspector is not required to" to "an inspector shall not" eliminates my options to make certain decisions about my business. Here is one example that happened 10 days ago.

My client is buying a condo and is concerned that his real estate salesman cannot tell him how much money is in the association's contingency fund. He asked if I will include in my inspection any obvious defects that I can find in the common areas to use in his negotiations for price. I include photographs of several trip hazards on the sidewalk leading to his apartment, improperly installed flashing on the deck, and a few other items.

The very last item on this SOP would have forbidden me from making this business arrangement with my client.

I will read the document this afternoon and maybe, by the end of the week, our committee can find something from it to extract and add to the existing SOP.

[John Bowman]

Nice start...

Several items concern me, but of main significance is the use of the acronym NACHI in specific statements that would clearly transfer all of the onus or responsibility for negligent reports in the hands of NACHI the corporation.

For instance:

Paragraph two, page 1...NACHI property inspectors are professional individuals who...

The use of "NACHI property inspectors" indicates that inspectors are under the employ of NACHI vs clearly spelling out the separate entity and membership status.

Paragraph three, page 1...NACHI Property Inspections are non-invasive and visual...

Again the use of the acronym NACHI implies that the reports are the property and responsibility of NACHI.

The document in of itself is difficult to evaluate or reference with the lack of a "table of contents" or index and a glossary of terms. For instance, without definition or clear concise descriptions what size units do these SOP's cover. Simplify things and include a dictionary or glossary of terms.

Very nice start.

[James H. Bushart]

It also precludes any state (or other entity) from adopting it as an SOP, since not all inspectors in any given state are "NACHI inspectors" (whatever the heck that means).

Good observation, John.

[rwand1]

I like what has been done thus far. Times are changing, inspections are changing. I think the document certainly reads better than the current SOP's of any association. The current industry SOP are overdue for a major face lift, they are vague, and are not always clear to the consumer.

The fact is inspectors are changing industry standards by the use of specialized tools. This needs to be reflected in the Standards. I am not suggesting we should be buying or using Carbon Monoxide testers but most certainly inspectors are using Electrical Tic Tracers, moisture meters, and removing electrical panels, furnace panels, using electrical plug testers. If these are written into the SOP's its still a minimum standard and reduces overall risk. All SOP remain flexible in that it does not restrict inspectors from exceeding the SOP, and that will be the case with revised SOP's.

We need to evolve, not remain neutral in the chaning face of our profession and revising the SOP is a good start. Lets not shelve it out of ignorance.

Good work Keith

[Michael W. Gault]

How about "if it ain't Broke..."

Perhaps the section headers with Keith's 'consumer friendly reminders' can be massaged into the existing SOP's without substantive changes to the "what we can and can't do portions"...

Maybe...

[Jason A. Sieg, CMI]

Here is an example of some wording I do not like seeing in our SOP's:

Section 7, Electrical

The inspector is required to:

1. Report the type and condition of the service entrance, when visible.
2. Report the size of the service, voltage and amperage.

How am I suppose to know the Voltage... For all I know the electrical system could be suffering from Brown-outs or spiking! I can estimate the voltage but, I certainly can not report it as a definitive.

There must be a far better way to make this statement.

This is just an example of some things that I feel need to be addressed in any SOP. The wording is too absolute and could cause me to be responsible for the Freezer full of meat that burned out due to system browning-out.