You telling me to get out?
Call me when you get to year 5!
The cameras I have used work fine. It just isn’t as easy as some make it out to be to get in a position to take those pictures.
I think that loser is talking to me.
The guy who has been using the best digital cameras since they were introduced.
I have taken thousands of photos in attics and the problems are numerous.
Seeing something clearly with binoculars or a monocular does in no way mean you can get a clear picture of it. His remarks prove he knows nothing.
Jeff what did you do before you woke up and started calling yourself a “professional” home inspector.
For the record I to thought it was pretty funny. The fact is I am willing to tell an embarrassing story just to help get the point across. There is no reason or need for the pictures except for the insurance companies to abuse them. When you are worrying about composing a shot you are NOT paying attention to things you should probably be paying attention to.
If you do not see that this is dangerous and unneeded then you really need to open you eyes and mind.
What do I have to gain from all of this?
NOTHING as I will continue to take the pictures for my records.
The only thing I want to gain from this is to make wind mitigation inspections safer and to keep someone from dying.
For it to be required for customers to get their credits is just wrong. The form says Visible and Accessible and that is not even interpreted correctly. A nail in a piece of wood is not visible. A piece of rebar in a wall is not visible. A hurricane clip or wrap 20’ away in an attic with no walk way and blown in insulation is not accessible.
If you are not in Florida you really have no dog in this fight and if you have NO experience with wind mits you should keep your mouth shut. It is better for you to keep your mouth shut and let us all think you do not know anything about them but when you open you mouth we who do them KNOW you know nothing.
Oh, that’s right… your little Kodak 110, and the fact you trip over your own feet, makes you the expert!
I hope you perform better research for your paying customers, because you suck at it. Try looking at the two (prior) states that I inspected in, beginning in 1996.
Funny how you always fall back on questioning someone else’s capabilities when you cannot defend your own.
Hmmm…
You two remind me of someone…
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum!!! :mrgreen:
Good luck Florida! You’re gonna need it with these two! :shock:
There is an old adage in street racing…
Never beat someone by three car lengths when you can beat them by a fender.
Think about it.
By the way, how many wind mitigation inspections have you performed?
Jeffery,
Sony mavica, Canon eos digital rebel, Canon Mark IId, Canon eos 50D, 2 Canon Powershot S80’s, Canon Powershor D10 waterproof and shockproof and my newest little gem Nikon Coolpix s9100. Those are the ones I remember.
It looks like you are wrong again. Does it bother you to look like a fool and be wrong all the time? I would say that is some experience want me to send you pictures of them or do you believe me. I did sell the mavica and I destroyed the first digital rebel in a boat accident but I have the rest.
Again I ask what did you do before you woke up and started calling yourself a home inspector?
What would you like me to defend? My life and experience are an open book. As you know I am about as honest as they get. Because I do not care what fools like you thnk.
Mike, sorry you got hurt, and hopefully it’s nothing major. Pictures are here to stay, so you might as well deal with it. Did the city inspectors take your word when you called for an inspection? No. Why do you expect the adjusters to? There have been far to many dodgy reports being submitted, and you have no chance of getting that requirement off of the 1802.
Pictures are here to stay, there are plenty of ways to make them easier, like using a telescopic pole, we should not be climbing around in the attic, use your brain instead. The only times i get into the attic is if i cant reach the top chord of the trusses, from the ladder, to do the nail spacing.
Lets stick to battles we might have a chance of winning. Get the wording of question 2 down to something along the lines of:
Does the roof meet either the SFBC or the 2001FBC?
If the roof meets the code the customer should get the discount.
Sean thanks, I believe I will be fine. It is not even as sore as I thought it would be. Do you know before digital cameras most Home Inspections did not include pictures.
As far as “Did the city inspectors take your word when you called for an inspection?”
No but guess what they sure did not photograph what I did and their work was taken by the county, city, and State.
Insurance companies and underwriters are not the OIR. The OIR should be looking out for clients and those performing insurance inspections. I do not believe their job is to help out the insurance companies I believe it is their job to regulate them hence the name Office of Insurance Regulation. What goes on the form is up to the OIR and NOT the insurance companies.
Thanks for the advice of getting the picts but I do have just a little experience with these and am doing all right.
I do not want the mistake removed from the form for me. I want it removed to keep someone from dying trying to photograph marks on a truss. It is not so easy to get 2 trusses in the shot with marks let alone what some recommend three. You think someone might be backing up and fall right out of a hatch someday? I do. What about Jerry who could have gotten killed trying to photograph something he already verified? What about Eric who almost came thru a ceiling. I do not remember if he had to do what he did to verify it or not but I bet he could have seen what he needed to without going where he went?
Why do you “seem” to care more about what the insurance companies want instead of other inspectors safety? I am sure that is not how you really feel but it does come across that way.
Mike,
I had to step over some duct work in order to get the picture. Something I have done thousands of times performing a regular inspection, with the exception, that I was trying to see something 20 feet away as opposed to walking over to the area.
The pictures are in a previous post in this thread.
The one simple fact that most don’t know as relayed to me by an insurance agent friend, is that any inspection, survey, or anything else that an insurance company sends to you, or requires you to have done, is for one purpose, to remove more money from your bank account.
It has noting to do with making things safer, protecting clients, of anything else along those lines. It has to do with revenue collection.
Mike, I am not questioning your ability. Neither am I saying these other inspectors don’t know what they are doing. I am not on the insurance companies side, I am firmly in the corner of the inspectors.
However, I like a lot of other people, have made some pretty good money out of these inspections, and truth be told if they were not there, I am not sure how I would have got through the last couple of years. These insurance inspections, whether they be 4 points or wind mits, have kept me on a good income, and long may they continue.
You say that you are against sending in pictures, yet you send them in when they are not required. You say that we are risking life and limb. Yet I think if you follow basic safety guidelines, there is nothing inherently risky in what we do. Yes people do get hurt, more because they fail to follow basic common safety procedures than because they were in a risky situation.
yet you send them in when they are not required.
No. I did not send them in I kept them for my self. If anyone had a issue I could use them to figure things out. I would not want someone with No experience deciding if they are correct or not.
This is wrong as well. I think if you follow basic safety guidelines, there is nothing inherently risky in what we do.
Because they are not necessary and because of what Eric said " Something I have done thousands of times performing a regular inspection, with the exception, that I was trying to see something 20 feet away as** opposed to walking over to the area.**
**I would lose money as well if **they stopped the inspections. I just want their mistake corrected and that line removed from the next form. Just because something will hurt me financially does not mean I am against it. Some things are more important than money. Principles and life. My principle is I do not think we should take UNNEEDED RISKS that are NOT necessary for an accurate inspection. They never were needed and somehow it just go slipped in. They did not even kiss us.
I do not owe the insurance companies squat. I owe the clients everything. They hire me because they know I am looking out for them and I could not care less what the insurance companies think.
Also the OIR is supposed to be in charge so the insurance agencies opinion really does not matter.
No Mike, when I said you ‘send them in when not required’ I am referring to pictures on 4 points. They are not required, but you send them in anyway.
As for ‘doing something i have done a thousand times before’ I bet the other 999 times he looked where he stepped.
That was the procedure when I learned how to do it I did not know any better.
The reason it is so dangerous is because you are no thinking about where you are. Your attention is focused elsewhere.
They sure seem important to you. Why do you think they have to be there? Why is it worth the risk? Why can you not trust the licensed professional? How do marks on trusses with a ruler next to it prove anything? How does a picture of a meter on a wall prove the wall is reinforced etc…
I personally cannot understand why any inspector would want this as a requirement. How does it help you? How does it help your customer?
Mike, pictures are not important to me, but if the insurance company want them they get them. Would you bang a nail in without first making sure you had solid footing? Of course not, well its the same when taking a picture. If you can see it so can the camera, you just might need to get the camera closer. Whether you use zoom or a pole is up to the individual.
Why can’t you trust the licensed individual. Hmmm…because too many have shown that they will lie through their teeth to make a buck. We all get tarred with the same brush.
As for the pictures they really dont prove anything, however they will help prove fraud, if it is there. As well as it helps to keep inspectors honest. Nothing is fool proof, however give a fraud enough rope and eventually they will hang themselves.
These inspections are not difficult, we can make great money out of them, and if someone wants a picture, thats fine by me too. Work smarter, not harder.
Many of these rants make us all look bad.
I will just have to agree to dissagree with you on this one Sean. I do not believe I will be able to show you the light. 
Fair enough, have a great weekend.
Same to you. Enjoy.
It isn’t a matter of taking the picture, it is what you have to do, in some instances to get into position. That is exactly how I slipped. It was a 130 degree attic, I was sweaty because the homes a/c didn’t work, and it was just one of those things that happens. First time in 20 years. I can live with it except for the fact, that during a normal inspection, I probably would have paid just a fraction of a bit more attention and the fact that it was on the second story and I was about six inches from landing 20 feet below on the kitchen island, may have some bearing on my statements.
As I said before in either this thread or another one, if the insurance company doesn’t believe what I marked down, send one of their own guys out there to prove it.
Truth be told, there really isn’t a need for pictures on the initial inspection, at least in my opinion.
The pictures will not prove fraud. Fraud requires proof of intent, and that is very hard to prove. Maybe the guy was just an idiot or didn’t know what he was doing. Calling it fraudulent is a stretch and a very poor excuse for pictures.Submitting pictures from another home and saying they were from the home inspected would be fraud…but who would be stupid enough to do that? :mrgreen:
pictures are not required for a complete home inspection, why should they be required for a minor portion of one?
I could not agree more. Please tell me what the heck is wrong with the rest of these guys.
The insurance companies cannot be paying them all off, could they?
I have yet to hear a good reason of why it is good for the inspector or the client yet.
You guys keep banging on about letting the insurance guys get the pictures, and how you don’t need pictures with a full inspection. Somehow I can’t imagine anyone putting out a full house inspection without pictures. As for the need for us to take pictures, to use Mike’s own words, " it is the up to the OIR not the insurance companies to decide", and trust me if the insurance companies had their we would not be in the picture at all.
Eric, when you say it was one of those things, you are basically saying that you were careless. Don’t get me wrong, I hope that you were not injured.
I have held a contractors license since the mid '90’s. Not one City Inspector in all that time has ever said " Well Sean, if you say its good, i’ll take your word for it" They have always gone to the jobsite to check. I don’t expect any different now.
The only difference is that, in this instance, the insurance company are told they have to take are word, with picture verification, for it. They would love nothing more than to take the independants out of the picture.