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

[James Eubank]

Re-writing the SOP is a big project, and it needs to start with two basic questions:
1. What is the purpose of the SOP?
2. What is wrong with the current SOP?
I'd like to see some reasonable answers to those questions before this project goes along too far.

For me, I use the SOP similar to a Scope of Inspection - a way to let my clients know what is included and what is not. When I exceed the SOP then I let them know that, too. So the SOP doesn't need to have the various contractual language, disclaimers, narrative descriptions, etc. That stuff goes in the report, not the SOP. For me, the current SOP works well, I don't see significant problems with it, so I don't see a need to re-write it. If it were to be re-written as proposed, then I, too, would probably just switch to using the ASHI SOP instead.

By the way, this whole discussion should have been started in the members-only section. It certainly fits the stated guidelines of . . . "Use it to discuss topics that are only relevant to NACHI members, or should not be made public." I recommend moving this topic, if such a thing can be done. It doesn't need to be in the public part of the message board, this early in the discussion.

[Blaine Wiley]

Well, lemme put my old bald head on the chopping block for a minute.

While I have stated for several years that I believe the SOP should be tougher, this doesn't look tougher to me. It is well written, and well thought out, but seems more to be full of verbiage designed to schmooze the buyer, rather than a document to set a more strict standard for the inspector.

The document seems to make it easier to disclaim, and uses the word disclaim at several places. The paragraphs prior to each section of standards look like something that belongs in an inspectors report, rather than in an inspection standard for an industry.

If we truly wish to toughen our standards, perhaps we should look in the direction of something like (this is very basic and for example only):

The inspector shall:
1. report on the type of roof covering
2. report the method used to inspect the roof covering
3. report as deficient any roof covering that is excessively worn, missing parts, etc.

Look at the Texas SOP. They seem to be the most direct, and stringent. They tell the inspector what to inspect, and what to report as defective.

Otherwise, leave the standards as they are.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mgault

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...

Perhaps we can incorporate some type of "consumer friendly reminders" as you suggest. The ESOP Committee will look at that as we consider this proposed change in the weeks to come.

The SOP as published is and will likely remain the governing document regarding our inspection method. It is the SOP that our E&O vendors have based their discounts, certain state governments are in various stages of adopting, and thousands of members have built their inspection and reporting models on all over the world.

The initial review of this proposed change shows it to be flawed by what it contains, what it omits, what it contradicts, and how certain parts are worded.

Joe F. asked a question last night that still remains unanswered regarding the need for a Porter-Valley SOP. If it (our SOP) has failed to stand up under any scrutiny by any judicial authorities to date, no one (including the author of the new proposal) has brought it to NACHI's attention.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" does not even apply...for we are not proposing to "fix" but to totally replace an SOP that is working without any justification for change even being presented. Perhaps a "tweaking" here and there can be argued, but to dump it in favor of a totally different SOP is just silly.

The ESOP Committee will review this proposal, however, and will get back to the membership and the author with what we find. All input is appreciated.

[rwand1]

In my opinion disgruntled consumers are taking inspectors to task in tort either for breach of contract or negligence. The SOP are only guide for the courts to render a decision based on what is expected of the inspector.

The courts look at the SOP to determine if the inspector was negligent in performing those contracted services or whether their was negligence in not meeting the standards, again in my opinion.

[Michael Larson]

I'm in the process of reviewing this proposed SOP and am trying to understansd the intent of the bold portion below.

The inspector is not required to:
1. Speculate on geological conditions, the type and compaction of soil, or its ability to percolate adequately.
2. Water-test or endorse any part of a drainage system, including sump pumps.
3. Speculate on the condition of subterranean or concealed components.
4. Endorse any site or system that is less than ideal.

What "ideal" are we supposed to be comparing the "site or system" too?

[Michael Larson]

The inspector is required to:
1. Inspect and report on the condition of building walls, with the exclusion of log homes.

What about other types of wall construction - "hay bale" walls for instance?

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The inspector is required to:
1. Inspect and report on the condition of building walls, with the exclusion of log homes.

What about other types of wall construction - "hay bale" walls for instance?

Michael,

What is your proposed language?

[acox]

I agree with Joe F completely that the use of specialized tools, meters, or equipment should not be included in the SOP. This only gives ammunition to a disgruntled homebuyer when their inspection didn't uncover something, and they read the SOP. "Ah Ha - he didn't use a whizbangometer on the kitchen wall - I've got him, now!"

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Michael,

What is your proposed language?

How about...

"Inspect the walls, ceilings, steps, stairways, and railings. "

[Blaine Wiley]

I too agree that specialized equipment should not be mentioned in the SOP.

The more any equipment is referenced, the more we get away from our tenuous claim that we are conducting a visual inspection.

I carry a whizbangometer, but our SOP currently doesn't require me to use it.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Michael,

What is your proposed language?

Why mention specifically log homes?
Better to disclaim unusual or non-typical wall systems individually. IMHO

[Jason A. Sieg, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I'm in the process of reviewing this proposed SOP and am trying to understansd the intent of the bold portion below.

The inspector is not required to:
1. Speculate on geological conditions, the type and compaction of soil, or its ability to percolate adequately.
2. Water-test or endorse any part of a drainage system, including sump pumps.
3. Speculate on the condition of subterranean or concealed components.
4. Endorse any site or system that is less than ideal.

What "ideal" are we supposed to be comparing the "site or system" too?

Who is to say what is IDEAL and what is NOT IDEAL?

I don't think building a home in in New Orleans is Ideal, too wet, too warm, etc.
You may not think building a home in Michigan is Ideal, too cold, too humid, etc.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

A lot, most, that has been suggested is very good indeed. Some things I'd never even thought of--one I'd never even heard of (hay bale walls), and this will lead us to make some changes. And if it doesn't, it proves that the membership is content with the standards as they exist. As to the use of instruments, most of us are using them to good advantage, and I believe their use should be acknowledged for legal protection. I use a laser-level, but I certainly don't use a manometer and conduct a survey of the foortprint.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Grading and Drainage appears prominently, because my E & O carrier informs me that "moisture" in one form or another contributes to a great many lawsuits. "Ideal" is probably the wrong word to have used. What I had in mind as "ideal" is a site/building that has gutters and downspouts, hard surfaces that slope away from a building, area drains, etc, etc, in other words one where drainage is not likely to ever be an issue except in flood conditions.

[dlawrence]

If I can put my two cents in. Remember I come from a military background where all of our regulations and governing instructions were written in blood. Meaning somewhere in the past a certain step or instruction wasn't there that should have been had we known about the danger before hand and someone got hurt or killed.
Anyway, when a loop hole is found in the SOP through a legal proceding that has the likelihood of reoccurring than maybe a change needs to be made to that specific area to protect against future lawsuets (bloodshedding). However we need to make sure we don't allow every little bump in the road to create an SOP that is impossible to follow.
I guess this is where the legal guru need to insure the verbage is right so it isn't interpreted any other way than the way it was meant.
I don't believe the SOP needs changing so much as an occasional amending or tweaking when it needs it.
Does that make any sense or am I just blabbing.

Chief Dave