7-2 Property Inspection Report

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I'm from up North but what in this statement isn't true or reasonable? It's up to the buyer to make our report a matter of negotiation between the seller and the buyer. It has no force or obligation associated with it. Period.

The language is true as is your opinion. We agree.

However TREC shouts it in the body of promulgated language. By capitalizing the statement they give it a higher priority than other wording. The main complaint agents have is managing repair requests. This wording is intentionally placed to discourage any repair negotiating. What better tool could a Realtor have than an official State form that says you don't have to do anything. Believe me when I say the wording was not capitalized to protect the public but to protect sales.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jcahill

The language is true as is your opinion. We agree.

However TREC shouts it in the body of promulgated language. By capitalizing the statement they give it a higher priority than other wording. The main complaint agents have is managing repair requests. This wording is intentionally placed to discourage any repair negotiating. What better tool could a Realtor have than an official State form that says you don't have to do anything. Believe me when I say the wording was not capitalized to protect the public but to protect sales.

Good as I thought I had missed something.

I see your point about the caps but hopefully the sellers are smart enough to realize they don't have to play the realtors game because it is their money they are spending.

[Dominic J. Maricic]

Originally Posted by jcahill

The logic is this. A PDF is nothing more than an electronic packaging medium. If I give you a printed report with three addendums attached it is no different than providing it in a combined PDF. It is reasonable to argue a combined PDF provides much less opportunity for misinformation than 3 separate PDF files that the buyer might overlook. A combined PDF is all about protecting the consumer. It assures they receive ALL the important information. TREC must protect the consumer.

Another logic is this. You can put ANYTHING you want into the "additional information by inspector" or "comments" section. ANYTHING including OP-I wording or a poem. "Roses are red; this house is dead; violets are blue; the ac smells like doo".

The attorney has a right to his opinion but the real opinion needs to come from the Commisioners under advice of General Counsel. If there is still disagreement then a judge can decide. Frankly arguing that you cannot do this is a waste of time. An administrative law judge would throw this out if TREC tried to pursue it in a complaint; it appears petty. They need to work on more important matters like interpretting the POS SOP.

John,

It was exactly who Mike heard talk about it. The problem for me is, when I have software users emailing reports to TREC for review and an attorney tells them if he ever sees this report he'd fine them $5,000, it becomes a chance I can't take (not exactly good PR). I agree completely it makes no sense. I even have emailed Devon sent to other inspectors saying it SHOULDN'T be a problem but then deferred to Robert on it for a final say.

I talked to Brian Murphy last week at the COA conference who is on the board and he said it wasn't a problem either. What to do? If you can help get an official wording on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

I have heard TREC attorney Robert Meisel voice that opinion at a live IC meeting earlier this year in the presence of his boss & boss' boss. I can't guarantee they heard nor agree with it but it was most definitely said. Personally, I took OP-I out of the body of the report but include it, as a separate page, in the pdf I send the client. That, theoretically, does not meet his opinion.

I have met Mr. Meisel and am impressed with his construction and real estate knowledge. I spent two hours reviewing complaints with him and we got along great. I suspect he was misinterpretted.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tl oc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=22&pt=23&ch=535&rl=223

According to TREC rules at the link above (D) the inspector may add a cover page to the report form. It does not say the page cannot be OP-I.

There is no rule that says a TREC form must remain on a single page. You can provide a header, an introductory statement and then OP-I on the same page.

According to TREC rules at the link above (K) the inspector may allocate such space in the "Additional Information Provided by the Inspector" section and in each of the spaces provided for comments for each inspected item as the inspector deems necessary or may attach additional pages of comments to the report. There is no rule that regulates what you say or what form you insert. It could be OP-I or a CPSC publication.

and (L) if necessary to report the inspection of a part, component, or system not contained in the standard form, or space provided on the form is inadequate for a complete reporting of the inspection, the inspector may attach additional pages to the form. When providing comments or additional pages to report on items listed on a form, the inspector shall arrange the comments or additional pages to follow the sequence of the items listed in the form adopted by the Commission. The key word is "to the form" and not behind the form. "To the form" integrates the product.

If you PDF the form than any pages attached TO the form are going to be in that PDF.

I cannot see TREC arguing on this. It protects the public.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by dmaricic

I talked to Brian Murphy last week at the COA conference who is on the board and he said it wasn't a problem either. What to do? If you can help get an official wording on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I think we can get this sorted out. The rule supports your interpretation and the majority in the industry sees no problem with it, including TAR. Its just a matter of opinions.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Yeah, I'm sure your right....I misinterpreted my lying ears Seriously, Robert is a good guy but he is new to TREC and has much to learn I suspect. In the meantime, he is still the primary voice of TREC to the inspector community. Perhaps now that the Mama Hen's attention is not diverted to Administrative duties then these little issues can get resolved.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Yeah, I'm sure your right....I misinterpreted my lying ears Seriously, Robert is a good guy but he is new to TREC and has much to learn I suspect. In the meantime, he is still the primary voice of TREC to the inspector community. Perhaps now that the Mama Hen's attention is not diverted to Administrative duties then these little issues can get resolved.

He is the first voice, not the primary voice. Consumer protection is the primary voice.

In my dealings with TREC if it don't come from the top it means nothing.

If a rule has more than one interpretation then it is interpreted all ways. A staff person cannot expand or constrain interpretation based on personal preference. If the rule needs to be more precise it needs to be re-written. SPCB got into trouble trying to box in licensees beyond the intent of statute by making a lot of bad rules.

[Dominic J. Maricic]

John, as Mike said there was no misinterpretation. I talked to him several times and after I pointed out several ambiguities in the TREC rules he calmed down and we had a great conversation. But he still said multiple times, the OP-I is a separate form. It cannot go where the TREC report says any additional info can go nor at the end. I quoted the same codes you gave me and it was a no go. Who would be considered the primary voice other than the rule being written into the next revision of the TREC form? In other words, who could I point to in case one of our inspectors gets told they are being fined or that we're wrong for including it.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by dmaricic

John, as Mike said there was no misinterpretation. I talked to him several times and after I pointed out several ambiguities in the TREC rules he calmed down and we had a great conversation. But he still said multiple times, the OP-I is a separate form. It cannot go where the TREC report says any additional info can go nor at the end. I quoted the same codes you gave me and it was a no go. Who would be considered the primary voice other than the rule being written into the next revision of the TREC form? In other words, who could I point to in case one of our inspectors gets told they are being fined or that we're wrong for including it.

First call Larry Foster and explain the problem. Show him the rule i referenced. If he agrees with you he will help defend it. Having him on your side is necessary. If opposes you its over without a law suit. Once he agrees with you (and I suspect he will) you address all of the Commisioners, the Executive Director and TAR in individual certified letters. Then you ask them for a prompt interpretation. The way to beat this is to prove the benefit to the consumer and make it very public at the Comissioner level. Staff does not like a spot light. If they stonewall be prepared to go to your legislator with a cc to Perry.

I forgot to say. Embedding two forms into one PDF does not make it a single document. I can put many forms into one document. Simply argue the form is a separate document and sak TREC to show a rule that says a PDF is a single entity.

[Michael R. Boyett]

John....you've thrown names at Dominic that do not mean anything to him. He's a California software developer.

[Dominic J. Maricic]

I tried calling my CA legislator, he told me to go away that they're too busy screwing our budget up right now, hehe

I figured out Larry Foster was the Chairman by a quick Google search. Perry I couldn't find though.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Uhhh....he's the governor

Let's not take that route just yet. Call me after you've had time to think about this and I'll help you however I can. Larry lives here in Austin and I can act as a go-between if needed.

btw....I'm signing off and shutting down for the night....really bad t'storms moving thru the area, sirens blaring, lightening.....

[Dominic J. Maricic]

LOL, that would explain why I couldn't find his name with TREC

Have a good night Mike, I'll talk to you tomorrow.