Thanks for the laugh of the day. 
“To label the house as “deficient” for not containing life-safety items that were not available when the house was constructed is unfair to the house and is misleading to all parties to the transaction.”
To NOT label the house as “deficient” for not containing life-safety items that were available and required when the house was constructed is even a greater issue.
I bet a lot of inspectors do not know when a life safety item was adopted. I see occasional reports where it states something was “not required” (why state that?). A quick check with the CAD district shows the age of the home which can then be cross-referenced to “yep, it was required”. There are cross references between the historical codes.
I can take a dwelling back to 1972 in building and earlier for the NEC. I’ve always wondered how many H.I.'s own code books. Maybe time for one of those survey monkeys.
see attached Aug. 31, 1897 issue of Underwriters (aka: National Electric Code)
This sort of non-thinking is a direct result of Realtor arse-kissing home inspector wannabees banded together in an organization and a perfect example of the old adage which says you should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
While I am a supporter of a couple of organizations with my dues, I avoid the meetings at all costs. Reading such things makes me angry. If they should be said to my face . . . I could become more than animated.:shock:
I have been told by an authoritative source that Brad Phillips did not author the article. I suppose he regrets having his name on it.
The author references former Chairman Fred Buck by saying “Fred Buck told of his concerns if life-safety items were to be removed from the SOP.” This is a statement used out of context to take advantage of Mr. Bucks reputation and facilitate a poorly written argument by the author. I suggest you ignore this attempt to misuse Mr. Bucks statement and reputation. A man without a valid argument will misquote an honest man.
The author is incorrect. There are no life safety items in the Standards. TREC has refused to identify anything as a hazard since the requirement was removed in 2000. TREC states on the promulgated form the inspection is not safety inspection. There are items in the Standards that have life safety impact but TREC intentionally does not require them to be identified as life safety concerns.
The author is incorrect. The author voted for Standards that require the items of concern to be identified as “deficient”. By that vote, a house built in 1960 that does not have GFCI is deficient by State Rule and Law. This fact alone disqualifies the entire newsletter.
The author is incorrect. TREC never determined anything, nor did the inspector committee. This is how GFCI got into the Standards. An inspector committee member from San Antonio stated for the record in 1995 “I call out missing GFCI as a repair and Realtors will not refer me. The rule must require all inspectors to call out GFCI”. The Rule was made to protect market share first and public safety second. TREC has never determined, on the basis of fact or study, why anything got into the Standards. They, figuratively speaking, pull it out of their a r s e.
The author stated “While some may not understand that we are only an advisory committee and only can make recommendations to the Real Estate Commission”. That sounds like “whiney spouse syndrome” and I am not speaking of Chardonnay. That is a statement made to diminish responsibility for a very poorly written Standard proposed by the advisory committee / author and adopted by the Commissioners. It would be patronizing if not made by a confused person. Thank God that “only” is all the authority they have.
I think TPREIA would publish this with a disclaimer the next time. Its a total fabrication.
A public apology is in order from TPREIA. I bet that one is not forthcoming. This is not the first time they have published mythological statements in their newsletter and elsewhere. In the future it would be advisable for them to find a knowledgeable person to do their proofreading prior to publishing nonsense.
I see your point Aaron but TPREIA is a group of people running a trade group for free. Someone shoves a “message from the advisory committee” in front of them and they oblige without ill intent. I think its more important to shoot the author of the message than the messenger.
I know the real author is reading this thread. I challenge him to step forward and explain his points.
Reacting to the E&O issue. How is it that we went from a collective agreement that the E&O requirement was foisted upon the inspector community by a legislator repaying a lobbyist? Even the Governor spoke against it just before he went ahead and signed it into law anyway.
Now some genius has decided that the law stipulates a minimum requirement, but no “maximum” . So they can construe that to mean the TREC can choose their own “minimum maximum” coverage and require an increase from $100,000 aggregate to triple at $300,000!
What is the driver for this? Who’s interest are they serving? Has the public been harmed by the existing minimum? They seem to be fixing problems that don’t exist, always at the expense of licensees.
Let us suppose, as you have posited, that the TPREIA was well-intentioned in their broadcasting this hogwash. Good intentions do not obviate one’s responsibility to think first and then act accordingly. When presented with nonsense do you just pass it along as gospel, or do you feel obligated to point out its flaws? As an organization, TPREIA has a high standard to meet in this respect. And they have a choice. They can either rise above the TREC and speak in the defense of inspectors, or they can join the ranks of the TREC puppet organizations like TAREI.
As for shooting the author, that goes without saying. Hand me down my shootin’ iron . . .
Participated in the TREC IAC Sub Committee meeting Tuesday. They plan to recommend keeping the Deficiency check box. Much discussion on code and safety items. Most commented to keep safety items. Some additions made to the OPi form concerning automatic controls as not required to be inspected.
Sign up with the Texas State Secretary website to receive updates on the TREC meeting AND postings for rules or law proposed changes. You have to sign up for both in order to receive these notifications. Once TREC post to the Texas Registers, your comments must be received within 30-Days or they feel that everyone agrees with proposed changes and proceed forward. Itis your industry, so stay informed.
The TREC proposal to change this is to remain at $100K minimum and $300K aggregate amounts. One insurance representative says we can expect a 10% increase in your policy. The other item on the agenda proposed is to do away with the recovery fund. What happens to the funds in this account. Reported to go into the general TREC funds.
This information can be found on the TREC website. Read for yourself.
Appears that TPREIA did have some of the information incorrect in our notice. We did in all fairness allow the TREC IAC to make a statement to inform everyone of these corrections. TPREIA distributed this letter for them on behave of the IAC. Some always have a lot to comment or criticize what others say. Wouldn’t it be nice to personally attend the TREC or IAC meetings and then comment on what you personally hear? TPREIA had three individuals at the referenced meeting. I only wish all Texas Inspectors could have been there or had the meeting streamed lived for everyone that wanted to participate. Anyway, I am human and do make mistakes. With that being said, the comments and emails send to the IAC and TREC DID MAKE a difference. So thanks to everyone that DID get involved. TPREIA is not political, doesn’t want to be and works tirelessly to make our industry better. Thanks for your comments.
Was there an actual apology hiding in there somewhere?:roll: