I will be using Palm Tech’s Palm-Tech Inspector V5. It seems like there is a lot more stuff in it’s templates than is necessary. I printed out a hard copy of all the items it has listed and am comparing it’s list with the do’s and don’t have to’s on the NACHI SOP.
A simple example is fences. The SOP says we don’t have to inspect fences, but fences are in the Palm Tech’s default list of stuff to check. There are other examples as well, of things that are not on the SOP but in the Palm list. And vice versa.
Should I just edit the template and delete stuff that’s not necessary, and add stuff that’s not there but should be? It seems like it might be riskly to comment on anything more than is necessary.
Chris certainly you may do whatever you like - but a few comments - food for thought.
There are two ways to look at the SOP.
It is the “minimum” standard of practice.
An inspector may exceed the SOP where the inspector has knowledge, skills or expertise in the subject area.
The issue is a fine balance between managing “risk” or dealing with ones “duty of care”. If the fence is there, and obvious defects are visible - what harm is there is noting such conditions? Now you can claim that you went above and beyond the SOP - in the best interest of your client.
I use palm tech too. Their templates are basic at best. I’ve created my own templates from scratch to suit me and to make it unique. 5V allows you to delete lines, create lines and categories and save what you created as a new template. Good luck to you.
“An inspector is not required to inspect…” does not necessarily mean you will not or cannot.
You base your fees upon the SOP. When your client requests additional items to be inspected, and you are able to do them (for some may require licensing or other credentials), you add them to that particular inspection…at an additional rate…making note of this modification to the SOP in your agreement.
You maybe in compliance or conformance, but so are many other inspectors who exceed the NACHI SOP. The SOP uses the following terms:
The inspector is not required to:
The inspectors are not required to determine:
The inspectors are not required to operate:
The NACHI SOP does not use the term:
The inspectors “Shall not”:
The NACHI SOP also lists the following items for example which I’m sure we’ve all tested or moved:
III. The inspectors are not required to:
A. Move any personal items or other obstructions, such as, but not limited to:
[INDENT]1. Throw rugs.
II. The inspectors are not required to operate:
[INDENT]A. Any system that is shut down.
B. Any system that does not function properly.
C. Or evaluate low voltage electrical systems such as, but not limited to:
Lights. (Personal favorite)…
M. Research the history of the property, report on its potential for alteration, modification, extendibility, or its suitability for a specific or proposed use for occupancy.
I’m paid thousands of dollars each year for researching building permit histories for the expert witness and or construction defect cases I’m involved with.
As RR routinely states the various model building codes are “Minimum” code requirements. And I believe all inspection organization SOP’s are minimum standards as well…