Sends out multiple Inspectors, each specializing in one area, i.e. one structural, one electrical, etc.
No, because, as I said:
All this Margarita talk…doesn’t anyone go with the good ole Crown and Coke ?
Crown is good, but Coke?
I haven’t had a Coke since senior prom in high school, way back in 1973. And I only had it then because it had Bacardi in it. 
Is John Smith videotaping his inspections?
Yes, yes he is.
We have a winner, folks!
Margaritas all around in honor of Troy!
Send the bill to Troy, too.
Yes, he simply walks around and videotapes everything while providing commentary, as well. Then he simply duplicates the CD and sends everyone a copy. When he gets back to the office, he creates a verbal “Addendum” to the videotaped inspection that has the necessary descriptions (copper water pipes, attic insulation, etc.) and defects. He also cuts a frame from the video to illustrate the defects. It’s a really cool report.
I haven’t done it yet because it would require significant a vast change of inspection and business protocols, a significant change that I’m not yet ready to make. In all fairness to myself, I haven’t spent a great deal of time on it either, though.
Thanks RR,
Videotaping the home inspection seems like a great way to give a client an interesting, thorough, user-friendly report. I would love to see a report that was done this way. The report could be recorded onto a CD in chapters much the same way that we divide our written reports into “Structural”, “Plumbing”, “Electrical”, “Summary”, etc.
There are so many benefits to this that I’m surprised that some enterprising individual hasn’t developed a product for it.
First and foremost among the benefits, it solidifies in the clients mind that our inspections are limited to visual evidence of the conditions of the systems and components that we inspect.
Secondly, it would be difficult for a client to prove that we missed things like cracks in the foundation when we have a video tape to prove otherwise.
Third, it would be much quicker to explain the information as I was videotaping then to be trying to find it on my handheld (especially for those of us that are new to inspecting).
Fourth, it would be much more enjoyable for the client. Most people would probably opt to watch a 45 minute video rather than read a 25 page report and summary.
Anyway, here’s to hoping that some company picks up on this video report idea and creates something easy to use that the clients will love.
I saw a report recently from what a realtor said: “is the **BEST **inspector around - he really knows how to treat an older house, he doesn’t nitpick it to death. **AND **he really values our time. He gets in in and out and prints the report on site in usually 1 to 1.5 hrs (start to finish)”.
One example of his wordsmithing was along the lines of:
"I spot-checked outlets throughout the house and all that I tested were operational. The interior electrical receptacles are a combination of grounded and ungrounded outlets."
Thats what he wrote. The house was 90 years old and about 55% of the outlets were ungrounded 3-prong receptacles including wet areas.
He said UNGROUNDED but in a way that did not even RAISE a RED-FLAG for me (when I read the report - before inspecting the house) and I’m an inspector. THis is how I think a lot of slime-balls slide by on their reports.
Great points.
He just sounds like an older, experienced home inspector who is still used to doing home inspections the old-fashioned way, by simply documenting the condition and then leaving it up to others to interpret what the documenting evidence means. That’s what he was taught. Nowadays many of us like to include education with our reports, such as why the ungrounded outlets are bad.
There are still many home inspectors here who use the traditional documentation method. They tend to be the older, more experienced inspectors who have been in business since 1975 or earlier, prior to any trade association, have done many thousands of inspections, and who just aren’t going to change to the newfangled software with all its hullabaloo. As one very experienced and highly respected inspector recently told me at a CREIA dinner meeting, “Ive been doing it this way for 27 years, have had no problems, and ain’t about to change now.” He actually used the word “ain’t” which, of course, raises red flags with me.
All the trade association standards that I have read allow for “spot-checking” outlets, also known as testing a representative sampling. Certainly in a furnished residence that’s about all I can do since I don’t go around unplugging all of the owners equipment and appliances and moving furniture to get to that outlet that I can see but can’t get to.
Additionally, no electrical code requires that a 90-year-old structure be brought up to current standards, so his documentation sounds like it was right on.
Personally, I still would have provided additional information that they could have clicked on in my [Interactive Report System](http://www.abouthomes.info/files/NACHI/IRS for NACHI members.pdf).
If you’ve got 3-prong receptacles that test ungrounded - they don’t do what they look like they should do. Therefore most inspectors I know would report this as a defect (because it is) and then suggest methods of making it OK.
You’re right upgrading is not mandatory. It is an option for correction as are other options including the buyers just accepting it as is … BUT … you would expect a competent and ethical inspector to tell someone its not right as is!!
That to me is not an older & experienced inspector, its a guy that is called “real popular” with the real estate agents AND a “dull pencil” or "whitewash guy" by the older & experienced inspectors.
The key word in that, as was my point, is “most.” Yes, most inspectors would report it as a defect, as would I. “Most,” however, means that some don’t.
Now I’m confused. Where does “upgrading” come in? I would not call going from ungrounded 3-prong outlets to grounded 3-prong outlets an “upgrade.” Now going from 2-prong outlets to grounded 3-prong outlets would be an upgrade.
I would agree with you there. However, the fact remains that there still are home inspectors who do things their way (I could be considered one of them in many respects; just ask Jeff Pope!) because they’ve been doing them that way for 30 years. One of our most well-respected and experienced home inspectors here has some unique and, in my opinion, totally dumb, stupid, or just plain incorrect, items in his reports. He is a past president of San Diego ASHI, San Diego CREIA, has been in business for 30 years, and is very popular with the Realtors, not because he’s easy per sé but because he’s been in business for 30 years, “so he must know what he’s doing.” Many of the older Realtors have been using him their entire careers as Realtors.
I think that it’s interesting that many of the older, experienced inspectors don’t want to train the new competition but, in some cases, I don’t want to be trained by them because they haven’t moved with the times.
Ungrounded, three hole outlets= DEFECT
Old, two hole, ungrounded outlets=Old, two hole, ungrounded outlets.
Well, not all the time.
Ungrounded, three hole outlets that are also GFCI protected are allowed, as long as they are identified as such.
Also, ungrounded, three hole outlets that are not GFCI protected are allowed as well, as long as they are identified as such.
Allowed by the NEC? I don’t think that is correct. If labelled and protected by a gfci, then yes but an ungrounded three prong outlet by itself, labelled or not, I don’t believe is allowed.
Ungrounded 3-hole outlets are done BUT not ALLOWED. They can be protected by GFCI and marked); put back as is; or upgraded to a new 3-hole grounded outlet (or if you prefer the word repair - then use it versus upgraded to describe what the electrician is going to do to it).
Apparently the AHJs here allow replacing 2-prong outlets with 3-prong outlets as long as:
1 - The new outlets are GFCI outlets and labeled “No Equipment Ground”
2 - The new outlets are protected by a GFCI outlet somewhere and labeled “No Equipment Ground”
3 - The new outlets are protected by a GFCI breaker and labeled “No Equipment Ground”
4 - The new outlets are not ground-fault protected and are labeled “No equipment ground”
I’ve never understood why one doesn’t just install a GFCI breaker in the electric panel (use #3 instead of #4), but when I check on #4 whenever I find the condition in a city where I have not checked before, it’s the same ol’ story: “It’s okay as long as they are properly labeled as not being grounded.”
#4 is quite common in the older homes here, notwithstanding the fact that something being “quite common” doesn’t necessarily make it right. But when it comes to “right,” I’ll have to leave that up to the AHJs. I wish I could say that the liability’s on their shoulders, but here in San Diego (and perhaps all of California), the AHJ can’t be sued for being wrong when his wrong decision causes property damage, personal injury, or death. Ah, to be a government employee. :margarita: .
#4 is not an option here. Not familiar with this option.