After using ahit software inspect it for a number of years finally hit the wall of frustration. Looking for new software that doesn’t have monthly fees associated. Reaching out to my fellow inspectors for some recommendations.
Try homegauge. You get alot for their monthly fee.
HomeHubZone is free if you agree to let one of their sponsors contact your client with an offer for a discount on alarm monitoring. They swear up and down they do it respectfully and don’t spam the client. After 30+ inspections I have not received any negative feedback, nor any pushback regarding the wording I had to put in my agreement in order to keep it free.
It does a lot of things really well, which you can learn more about at their web site. My biggest warning would be to not trust their pre-written comments. Lots of weird wording, and some stuff just plain wrong. After the first half-dozen reports I decided to go through and edit/rewrite a lot of them. Took me many evenings, but with the dross out of the way, I can get reports done very efficiently, and have even posted a few from the field when time was of the essence.
I took a hard look at HomeGauge after I had been using HHZ for a while, but I had gotten spoiled by the ease of synchronization between desktop and tablet, among other things.
I would like to have considered Tap Inspect, but it can’t deliver reports in the Texas format.
What wording do they require be put in your PIA? Would you share so others can see?
His agreement is on his website.
Your inspector may have an affiliation with a third party service provider (“TPSP”) in order to offer you additional value added services. By entering into this agreement you (a) authorize your inspector to provide your contact information (including telephone number) to the TPSP, (b) waive and release any restrictions that may prevent the TPSP from contacting you, and © authorize the TPSP to contact you regarding home services. You will receive an email notification from the TPSP allowing you to opt out before any phone calls are made, and may opt out from all forms of contact at any time.
The PIA wording required is as follows:
“Your inspector may have an affiliation with a third party service provider (“TPSP”) in order to offer you additional value-added services. By entering into this agreement you (a) authorize your inspector to provide your contact information (including telephone number) to the TPSP, (b) waive and release any restrictions that may prevent the TPSP from contacting you (including by telephone using automated dialing technology), and © authorize the TPSP to contact you (including by telephone) regarding special home alarm system offers.”
I expressed strong misgivings about allowing “automated dialing technology” (I.E. it was a “deal breaker”) to the person running the alarm leads program, and they said it was OK if I omitted that.
To elaborate on my objections to some of their comments, here’s a quick example;
This is an “Impact” comment for a deficiency entitled “Improperly done repair”:
“Because the roof material was installed incorrectly and lack proper stability and protection”
First of all, the way I look at it, a deficiency is a deficiency, whether caused by a repair, improper installation, damage from any number of causes, etc. I see no reason to attempt to speculate on the originating cause of the defect. Site the deficiency, state the impact, make your recommendation, and move on.
In the Impact statement, as written, the subordinating conjunction “because” is never addressed. “Lack” is not the proper tense of the verb, and instead should be “lacks”. It is sloppy sentence structure that requires decoding and assumption before it makes any sense. The Impact portion of the statement should have read more like this; “May lead to leaking and/or improper run-off, resulting in damage to the property”.
I wish I could be more accommodating and offer more examples, but I deleted the vast majority of that material so it would not make it into my reports, and there’s not really a good librarian function that would make it easier to scan these comments. Another gripe, but I have found viable work-around.
I was finding was a lot of stuff copied directly from internet sources, incorrect syntax (as if English was not their first language), and a few that were just flat out wrong. It seemed quite apparent to me, even as a “newby”, that whoever was writing the comments did not have the background necessary to understand what they were writing about.
All in all, it’s stuff that could have impact ranging from mild embarrassment to mortification and, in a few instances may have opened the door to legal issues.
In a way, it was a good thing. It forced me to develop a discipline around how I was putting my reports together, and to do a lot of research to make sure my comments were correct while being concise. I would just hate to think that someone might use HHZ under the assumption that the prepared comments were authoritative and well-worded. In my opinion, they are not.
Use HIP. Well worth it