7-2 Property Inspection Report

has been released and is effective now…any questions contact trec

From: devon.bijansky@trec.state.tx.us
Sent: Monday
Subject: RE: TREC 7-2

The 7-2 form is effective now. Currently, both the 7-2 or the 7A-1 may be used, but it is likely that the 7A-1 will be phased out in the next several months. (That is, of course, subject to formal action by the Commission.)

Devon V. Bijansky
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Real Estate Commission
Phone (512) 465-3900
Fax (512) 465-3910



Wow I must be asleep at the wheel. This is the first i have heard about the form being changed again. At first glance it looks like the only change is the disclaimer verbiage.
Was anything change to the SOP’s?


There are no changes to the SOP. 7-2 simply cleans up various typo’s, etc on the old form.

Hmmm. The State posted a form with errors? Was that negligent or incompetent? :stuck_out_tongue: People spent thousands redoing their forms.

To err is human. We all forgive the State. Now ya got me wondering how many errors there are in the SoP. I have found many so far and I have spoken with committee members who have acknowledged there are errors. Inspectors are using a flawed Standard and I got to wonder how fast the State will make corrections.

I am reviewing the new form. They changed the font entirely! It is much smaller. That is good. It makes it difficult for lawyers to argue the font is too small.

There’s an IAC subcommittee teleconference on 10/6…looks like the Commentary is back on the table and maybe SOP change proposals!

But will it be enforceable? It will be interesting to see how the TREC lawyers spin this one.

I think it will make an outstanding and much coveted resource for plaintiff’s attorneys

No, no. That cannot be true. TREC did an assessment and determined that there would no cost or impact to businesses to convert to the new form.

Since there is no cost or impact, why not just revise it monthly?:twisted:

That’s the main reason the Commentary was put on the back burner in May…TREC Attorney’s insistence that it become part of the SOP rather than a stand-alone support document. Becoming an integral part of the SOP would allow TREC and anyone else, i.e. plaintiffs attorneys, to more easily use the Commentary against inspectors. As much as I’d like to see a quality commentary completed, I would surely be against it if it were a part of the SOP. Since the above stated agenda for the 10/6 teleconference includes topics on the Commentary and the SOP then I’m very suspicious and worried that the IAC has capitulated and is now proposing to integrate the two documents. I haven’t decided yet if I will attend the meeting but if I do then I’ll post my meeting minutes here.

I’m happy they released 7-2. I was getting tired of explaining to people why I had to legally include typo’s in case sensitivity, grammar and codes to our potential and existing users :expressionless:

I talked to an inspector on the committee when I was in Vegas last week who stated that the OP-I form is allowed to be included at the end of the report within the same PDF or possibly even in Additional Inspector Info. Of course the TREC Attorney told me the exact opposite, that it couldn’t be at the end of the report in any circumstance. I’ve just left it out now because of the conflict.

The attorney is wrong or the question was incorrectly stated. You may attach all the information you desire to the back of your report, especially OP-I. TREC wants you to do that!

OP-I was created to water down the inspection. Without OP-I, the SoP would have never passed. The inspector charges the consumer money to compare old homes to new code then OP-I tells them they do not have to do any of the repairs because they are grandfathered. OP-I allows the real estate agent to dilute the entire report and it is intentional. Think not? Consider this.

The old form (7-1) said

Items identified in the report do not obligate any party to make repairs or take other action, nor is the purchaser required to request that the seller take any action.

The new (7-2) form says the same thing with a minor stylistic change.


It’s the same words but it **SHOUTS **the OP-I message. The IC is cramming information most consumers do not want down their throats. TREC obliges them then disassembles it all with OP-I and bold cap language on the form. Who pays for all this? The consumer pays extra for me to provide information they do not want and ignore. That also makes the day so long I cannot provide my skills to others that desire them.

Email me who the attorney was. I will be glad to take the opinion to the highest level. I am sure it was simply an incorrectly stated question. TREC does not tread on the desires of TAR. john@cahillinspection.com

“Stylistic change” means “The inspectas reporte donta meana sheeet; justa buy de housa” :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: and that means the “SoP donta meana sheet.”

I’ll email you who it was. I spent hours going rounds with him and even discussed our attorneys interpretation. It definitely was very clear. The OP-I COULD NOT be included in the same PDF as the report. I had this brought up after an inspector sent a copy of our report to him for review an he ripped the report because he had it in the same PDF as an addendum. I think I have it in email form too , let me look and I’ll send it to you.

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.

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.

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.

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.:wink:

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.