Commentary for Texas and Practices now available

[rramsey1]

http://www.trec.state.tx.us/inspector/default.asp

[Jim Hime]

I like the TREC section numbers listed out by the line item of the SoP.

I've been adding these TREC section numbers in reports for over a year by the line item as a reference. This will make it faster and easier to include the TREC section number. I think I will be using the commentary more than the SoP.

I would like to see the Section/sub-section headings in bold font to make it faster to find in the SoP. I've done that in my copy of the SoP so I can find
the sections quicker.

P.S. - No one has to add the TREC section number in a report. I choose to do so with other references. I could care less what others do/don't do. Everyone has a different bark.

[Aaron D. Miller]

As I mentioned directly to the author of the commentary long before its publication, it consists of nothing more than a band-aid applied to the festering wound of an SOP which has been foisted on Texas inspectors. Put another way, it is a feeble attempt to explain the inexplicable. Or as the Bard once said:

"It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing."

[Aaron D. Miller]

Well, OK, that may be unfair. It does signify one thing: the new Commentary will give the TREC enforcement personnel a bigger hammer to drive the new Penalty Matrix nails into the pocketbooks of licensees. But then, that was the intent all along . . .

[Michael R. Boyett]

To be accurate, the TREC SOP Commentary is still in the proposal stage and what has been published is an incomplete Draft for review and comment. It will be finished over the next couple of months and then considered for adoption. The method of adoption is critical, i.e. adopted by Rule as a standalone document or integrated into the SOP, adopted as an 'education module', etc. Each method has ramifications as to how it will be used and whether it becomes an enforceable document or not. Texas HI's can read more about that and other topics of interest at http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/ .

[Aaron D. Miller]

So then, I made my comments about the draft. What's your point?

[Michael R. Boyett]

None whatsoever.

[John Cahill]

The proposed Commentary will be impossible to use as an educational document. Just reading it makes a person stupid.

Example:
The Standard states:
"The inspector is not required to determine code compliance"


The TREC form states
"The inspection report may address issues that are code-based or may refer to a particular code; however, this is NOT a code compliance inspection and does NOT verify compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions"


TREC form OP1 states
"While the TREC Standards of Practice do not require inspectors to perform a code compliance inspection"


The Commentary states:
"Information on the specifications for stairways can be found in the IRC."

Aaron is right in his assessment. The Commentary is a comedy.

[Jim Hime]

Originally Posted by jcahill

The Standard states:
"The inspector is not required to determine code compliance"

The TREC form states
"The inspection report may address issues that are code-based or may refer to a particular code; however, this is NOT a code compliance inspection and does NOT verify compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions"

TREC form OP1 states
"While the TREC Standards of Practice do not require inspectors to perform a code compliance inspection"

The Commentary states:
"Information on the specifications for stairways can be found in the IRC."

Remember when the current SoP was adopted?
Go back and read this -

Chp 535, General Provisions, Subchapter R. Real Estate Inspectors 535.227-535.233

"(TREC) has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections as proposed are in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the new rules will be increased clairty for inspectors and consumers alike, as well as standards that more accurately reflect current technology, codes, and practices that form the basis of many of the standards".

The SoP initially started with standards based on CABO. So what? The SoP deals with building structures so it has to naturally rely on codification (which is a standard).

GFCI's, AFCI's, baluster spacing, safety glass, no bath exhaust fan in required areas, egress, smoke alarms, etc., etc. are all based on current codification.

The Commentary will be developed. It appears that it could become a good educational tool as it appears to be an attempt to explain the content and intent of the SoP. However, there are so many variables in parts, components and systems that the Commentary can never be an absolute as structures and property condition are not homogeneous and certainly not absolute.

Even the ICC recognizes that the IRC cannot be an absolute and surrenders itself to R301.1.3. One would hope the "Commentary" would have the same foresight.

Architects, engineers, city inspectors, etc. do not have Commentaries and are left to professional opinion-making. Yes, the "Commentary" could become a good educational tool but can never be a design manual for inspecting non-homogeneous conditions IMO.

The Commentary Draft is only a start of a document that can be developed with input. I assume it can always be updated, revised or changed.

One question I guess is how (or if) the Commentary or SoP relates to the "Residential Construction Performance Guideline" of the National Assn. of Builders. If builders attempt to be held accountable to one guideline and inspectors (in Texas) inspect to another then there will always be conflict.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jhime

then there will always be conflict.

I have no problem with a prescriptive SoP and supporting Commentary providing contradictions are eliminated; sections are balanced in prescriptive detail; any clarification revealed by the Commentary is adopted into SoP rule and lastly the client or public can choose to allow departure in order to purchase a concise and affordable product. I do not want two ruling documents that force the consumer to pay for what they might not want.

The current system seems headed that way. Good luck to them.

[Aaron D. Miller]

One question I guess is how (or if) the Commentary or SoP relates to the "Residential Construction Performance Guideline" of the National Assn. of Builders. If builders attempt to be held accountable to one guideline and inspectors (in Texas) inspect to another then there will always be conflict.

The SOP and its soon-to-be lame-*** commentary have never addressed what's important in new construction (or existing homes); and I'm referring to the model codes themselves, not the NAHB's one-legged attempt to produce a performance standard. Until the SOP is based solely upon the most current versions of the model codes there will be no real protection for home buyers. The current Texas SOP is laughable at best. The commentary will only add more useless verbiage to the joke.

[Jim Hime]

Originally Posted by amiller

The SOP and its soon-to-be lame-*** commentary have never addressed what's important in new construction (or existing homes); and I'm referring to the model codes themselves, not the NAHB's one-legged attempt to produce a performance standard.

One can always provide a higher level of inspection service to the buyer. Nothing in the general provisions limits what the inspector may offer or provide. You don't have to agree with a minimum standard. (example) A blocked weep hole is very significant and you don't need inner wall damage before you report a blocked weep hole as being a deficiency.

The TREC SoP is based on codification and nothing in the general provisions accepts "grand-fathering" or limits what the inspector can inspect. Broke is broke and wrong is wrong regardless of age or condition. I have a problem of it's not deficient until it hits you in the head or causes damage. Problem is there is not one home out there that meets the code and there never will be because there is a political lack of enforcement and a problem of affordability. A large problem is that one can't define what a SoP minimum standard is (so how do you write a Commentary?). There are too many variables. At the end of the day it looks like in some cases the Commentary may raise the bar for some that inspect below the standard (didn't know, lack of experience, not trained, etc.) and simply irritate some others. I think a larger percentage don't care and will just accept what is thrown at them.

I don't think any sub-committee has looked at the NAHB residential construction performance guidelines as it relates to the TREC SoP. Whether TREC or NAHB, both are an attempt to provide something to the public. At least take time to look at the other standards and performance guidelines before attempting to write one that could be in conflict with the other.

[Aaron D. Miller]

I don't think any sub-committee has looked at the NAHB residential construction performance guidelines as it relates to the TREC SoP. Whether TREC or NAHB, both are an attempt to provide something to the public. At least take time to look at the other standards and performance guidelines before attempting to write one that could be in conflict with the other.

The man from near Houston assumes that the parties in question can read.

[Jim Hime]

Originally Posted by amiller

The man from near Houston assumes that the parties in question can read.

Er, Galveston anyway.

I don't think it is a matter of being able read but rather a ooooops based on many alternative comments.

There are not many inspectors that came from the actual construction or home building industry. Code certification in either home inspection or building homes appears to be lax to fairly non-existent. At times I believe inspectors and builders are all on equal ground and have no clue of what we are doing. (That ought to start a riot of comment) I think the bar was lowered recently for time of experience and what type for getting a license. I have a hard time crediting house painting as construction (home building) experience.

Again, a Commentary won't be complete, accurate or absolute but it will help
explain the SoP. I hope it will raise the bar as you and I know there is no effective training program (on how to inspect and what to look for). From house painting to structural and mechanical inspections is a huge step for anyone. That takes guts. But, "if teacher hasn't taught or helped, student hasn't learned."

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jhime

One can always provide a higher level of inspection service to the buyer.

The Rules also allow a lesser service to provided with client consent. I often do not look at the foundation if the client has an engineer doing elevations or if they are tearing out the entire kitchen. You can do more. . . . or less. Up to the client. That is the way business should be.

Originally Posted by jhime

A blocked weep hole is very significant and you don't need inner wall damage before you report a blocked weep hole as being a deficiency.

In reply to www.soprfi.com, the TREC inspector committee stated a missing weep hole is not a defect if there is no evidence of damage.

Originally Posted by jhime

The TREC SoP is based on codification

Actually they will say is is not based on code. But it is . . . .sorta. Its the "sorta" that causes the problems.

Originally Posted by jhime

nothing in the general provisions accepts "grand-fathering"

TREC form OP1 accepts grandfathering . . . officially.

http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/contracts/OP-I.PDF

Originally Posted by jhime

I have a problem of it's not deficient until it hits you in the head or causes damage.

I predict mayhem all the time. It's what the client really wants. I suspect you and Aaron do also. It does not cultivate Realtor referrals however. Its very difficult to require inspectors to predict potentials.

Originally Posted by jhime

Problem is there is not one home out there that meets the code and there never will be because there is a political lack of enforcement and a problem of affordability.

Affordability. BINGO. You nailed it. If public safety was a concern we would lower highway speed limits to 45 mpg.

Originally Posted by jhime

A large problem is that one can't define what a SoP minimum standard is

Inspect foundation, roof electrical, plumbing roof etc works for me.

Originally Posted by jhime

(so how do you write a Commentary?). There are too many variables.

You are right again

Originally Posted by jhime

I think a larger percentage don't care and will just accept what is thrown at them.

Right again

Originally Posted by jhime

I don't think any sub-committee has looked at the NAHB residential construction performance guidelines as it relates to the TREC SoP. Whether TREC or NAHB, both are an attempt to provide something to the public. At least take time to look at the other standards and performance guidelines before attempting to write one that could be in conflict with the other.

That sounds fair.