Commentary

[John Cahill]

The inspector committee Commentary is posted for public comment. They are at the TREC site. I do not know what INACHI, ASHI, TPREIA or TAREI intends to do. The

Here are some of my comments. .

Commentary states -- During the course of an inspection, it is not uncommon to encounter obstructions blocking access to various components of the residence. It is not the responsibility of the inspector to determine the weight of the object, the contents or value of the item. It is for the individual inspector to determine if an object can be reasonably or safely moved. If the inspector determines that an item cannot be reasonably or safely moved, the inspector must follow the requirements of the Departure Provision.

This interpretation requires the inspector to determine if items preventing inspection can be reasonably and safely moved. If the inspector decides to not move an item then the client must be notified at the earliest practical moment of the limitation. This would mean

• If you do not move clothing out of a closet to see the walls you must depart from that closet.
• If you do not move items from under a sink you must depart from the underside of that sink.
• If you do not move a couch on a wall you must depart the area behind and under the couch.
• Any area not specifically departed from will be considered inspected as if it were vacant.
• A general departure such as “the home was furnished” will have you being responsible for proving it in event of a complaint. Better take a lot of pictures if you do not put it all in the report.

It is important to know the Standards require nothing to be specifically moved. The Commentary is a gross over interpretation.

Commentary states - EXAMPLE: A push broom in front of a panel board would not be considered to be an obstruction preventing the inspection of the panel board.

Imagine 10 to 20 items like a push broom in front of a closet. The commentary expects you to move them all or specifically depart.

Commentary states -- The standards of practice dictate that panels provided for observation of items required for inspection by the standards of practice be opened.

Actually the commentary relies on the definition of accessible.

(1) Accessible--In the reasonable judgment of the inspector, capable of being approached, entered, or viewed without:
(D) disassembling items other than covers or panels intended to be removed for inspection;

(e) Hydro-massage therapy equipment. The inspector shall report as Deficient:
(1) inoperative unit (s) and controls;
(2) the presence of active leaks;
(3) inaccessible pump (s) or motor (s);
(4) the lack or failure of required ground-fault circuit interrupter protection; and
(5) deficiencies in the ports, valves, grates, and covers.

In the above example the Standards do not dictate a cover to be removed. All l5 requirements can be done with the cover on.


Commentary states -- These panels include access panels for bathtub drains, hydro therapy bathtub pumps and motors, dishwasher pumps, motors, water supply pipes and electrical components, the electrical components of water heaters and central heaters and the dead fronts on main disconnects, gutters, panel boards and equipment disconnects, and lighting fixture switches and electrical wall receptacles, etc. It is not intended that all lighting fixture switches and electrical wall receptacles, junction or appliance boxes be opened or that the interiors of the junction and appliance boxes be inspected. Opening of covers and panels should be made without defacing the property or damaging otherwise sound surfaces other than minor damages to painted surfaces.

This expands the scope of inspection to removing far more covers than most inspects remove. How many areas have motors that would require disassembly to look at. How difficult would it be to depart from all of this?

Commentary states -- This is intended to mean that the inspector will not intentionally cause damage to sound surfaces. Probing areas that appeared decayed to determine the extent of the decay shall not be construed as causing damage to sound surfaces. It is expected that the inspector will remedy any damages caused accidentally.

The Commentary authorizes inspectors to excavate decayed areas without permission of the seller? The TREC Rules hold the inspector responsible for any damage caused accidentally. I do not think such is the case.

Commentary -- “Industry” practice should not be confused with “local” practices. “Industry” practice, for the purposes of the standards of Practice, means compliance with accepted and published industry standards such as industry association installation or maintenance requirements. An installation is common to a certain location but, the installation cannot be confirmed by industry associations, manufacturer’s installation instructions or model buildings codes, is not acceptable for the purposes of these standards of Practice.

This requires the inspector to assure the home complies with

• accepted and industry published industry standards
• industry association installation or maintenance requirements.
• industry associations,
• manufacturer’s installation instructions or
• model buildings codes
• This is a comprehensive list of referenced to know.

Commentary -- The primary purpose of a pre-purchase real estate inspection is to provide a consumer as much information as possible, within the limitations of a visual inspection, so that the consumer can make an informed purchase. The inspector is encouraged to provide as much information as the inspector deems necessary for the client to understand the nature and importance of the items noted as deficient in the report. While the inspector must perform each inspection to the minimum levels prescribed by the standards of Practice, or the inspector must follow the provisions of the Departure Provision, nothing in the rules of the Texas Real Estate Commission or the intent of Chapter 1102 of the Texas Occupations Code are intended to limit the level of service provided by the inspector.

How extensive is “as much information as possible”? The Standards do not require the inspector to assure the client understands the nature and importance of the report. This puts the inspector in a position of assuring the consumer understands the findings of the report. All the consumer would have to say is “I did not understand. The inspector failed me”.


Send TREC a note and tell them you do not favor the Standards Commentary,


commentary@trec.texas.gov



The work is at http://www.trec.texas.gov/inspector/default.asp

[Gary Baldridge]

John: I have been reading thriough this and wondering about " Departure Prvision" Is this new or have I missed something?

[Dale Duffy]

Absolutely incredible.....

Makes a person wonder if there is a herd of Chimpanzees dreaming up these "Standards".

[Michael R. Boyett]

Dale...the Commentary is not a "standard' nor a rule but rather a training aid for now. It is not an extension of the TREC SOP and is not enforceable. The question is how long that will last before it does become part of the SOP or relied upon by TREC Enforcement for rule interpretations. The Inspector Advisory Committee (IAC) desperately wants to publish the Commentary, TREC staff just as adamantly does not support the Commentary being part of the SOP. The "training aid" was a compromise between the two. The Commentary is onerous as all get out when interpreted as John shows.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Gary, TREC Rule 535.227 states (and has for as long as I can remember, which sometimes is not all that long):

(5) Departure.
(A) An inspector may depart from the standards of practice only if the requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph are met, and:
...(i) the inspector and client agree the item is not to be inspected;
...(ii) the inspector is not qualified to inspect the item;
...(iii) conditions beyond the control of the inspector reasonably prevent inspection of an item;
...(iv) the item is a common element of a multi-family development and is not in physical contact with the unit being inspected, such as the foundation under another building or a part of the foundation under another unit in the same building;
...(v) the inspector reasonably determines that conditions or materials are hazardous to the health or safety of the inspector; or
...(vi) the inspector reasonably determines that actions of the inspector may cause damage to the property.

(B) If a part, component, or system required for inspection is not inspected, the inspector shall:
...(i) advise the client at the earliest practical opportunity that the part, component, or system will not be inspected; and
...(ii) make an appropriate notation on the inspection report form, clearly stating the reason the part, component, or system was not inspected.

(C) If the inspector routinely departs from inspection of a part, system, or component, the earliest practical opportunity for the notice required by this subsection is the first contact with the prospect and the inspector has reason to believe that the property being inspected has the part, system, or component the inspector routinely does not inspect.