So there’s an inspector in my area that now insist on wearing a bodycam during the inspection, at all inspections. Supposedly had a trust issue or two with previous inspections.
I heard about this a few weeks ago. Today I was contacted by an agent desperate to find an inspector that had an opening tomorrow. She had already had the inspection scheduled for over a week with the bodycam inspector, but the homeowners refuse to let him inspect their home while wearing a bodycam.
Personally I’m glad I don’t have the paranoia this inspector has.
I can fully understand his position and IMO would not consider it paranoia. Of course he needs to be careful about activating it while dealing with others since that could be considered improper or illegal recording. However I really don’t see any difference between a bodycam and numerous pictures to documented what is needed to be documented.
Has he mentioned what the “trust issues” were? Unfortunately for him/her they have already been marked since he/she chose to use a visible bodycam. If I ever choose to use one the others would never know it was there.
Must be the same guy that posted this on FB this morning…
I got notice from from a listing agent today that the seller says I am not allowed to wear my body camera during the inspection and only allowed to take pictures of defects that will be in the inspection report and nothing else. I told the listing agent that I would not do the inspection if I could not document the condition of the entire house. Whats everybody else’s opinion?
You don’t see the difference between documenting a defect and scanning the contents of the whole house to be shared with the rest of the world (regardless that you put "For buyers use only on the report)?
Your not entitled to do anything you want while in someone else’s property.
I don’t leave a house without proper documentation of the conditions there. Just because I document the conditions doesn’t mean all of that documentation goes into a report that is circulated. In fact when I document an issue that will be placed in the report it is with the intention of keeping out personal belongings or other important security type details if at all possible.
Are you misunderstanding what is being talked about or just being an idiot?
I think the seller’s reaction is pretty illogical. They have allowed countless strangers roam through their home, but have a problem with a licensed professional wearing a bodycam.
Think about it. Which scenario has greater potential for illegal or inappropriate behavior:
Someone in your house for 3 to 4 hours unsupervised, with a still camera and a bodycam that runs for the duration of the inspection. It will show everywhere the inspector went, what went on in front of them, and how long they spent in each room. The footage from this camera would be made available complete and unedited upon request.
Someone in your house for 3 to 4 hours unsupervised, with a still camera, who presents only the photos he/she deems relevant to the report.
Answer seems simple enough to me. If an inspector was going to misbehave, it seems that bodycam footage would be the last thing they would want to have in the seller’s hands.
I’ve been in tons of houses that have cameras everywhere.
If they can document us, why can’t we document them?
I’ve often wished I had a body cam. Not to document the house for the buyer, but for all those calls from the seller who claim “but it was fine before the inspector got here!”.
As if my mere presence magically made a perfect home suddenly full of defects that weren’t there yesterday.
IMO both have an equal potential for inappropriate or illegal behavior. It just depends on the person taking the visible documentation. Now as for the one with the bodycam I agree they are taking a much higher chance of causing themselves problems if it is known they are recording. If they make a mistake it’s obviously caught on camera and hard to get rid of or edit out the misdeed.
What would be totally dumb is if the filming Inspector used the video for anything other than their own use of reviewing the inspection or as a way to help limit their liability. In other words the video never sees the light of day past their own eyes. You were not in the biz many years ago when an Inspector local to us was using the videos as marketing. The Inspector videotaped his inspections, along with a date and address embedded on the video, and then posted them all to YouTube. I was later told that it apparently did not end well for the Inspector.
It is my understanding that a body cam records “Everything in front of it”.
Is this not your understanding?
Or am I misunderstanding what you intended to write, because that is not what you wrote. I can’t read minds.
What do you do “When it’s not possible”?
Do you not understand that if you should have to go to court for any reason, you will be required to produce “All Documentation” created during the inspection? Failure to do so is Contempt of Court.
Just because it is not “in the Report” does not mean it is safely tucked away. Once you record it, there is no throwing it away. Your not Hillery Clinton!
For the record … I don’t give crying crap what he does…Nope!
He appears to be an idiot…
He could do his inspection in speedos…I don’t care.
If he is that so afraid of screwing up…He needs to find a new profession…Flippin’ Yep!
This has to be the most easiest profession to get into…No doubt.
You as an inspector makes it what it is in your world…
Take creedence from some of our seasons inspector on this board.
Eat the meat and spit out the bones…Yes!
Absolutely! I also said other things as well but you have chosen to use a snippet to distort the meaning of what was said. That’s an unfortunate common occurrence now among the less educated.
Read the posts as you are again distorting what has been said in an attempt to support “your opinion” that I have disagreed with. You certainly sound like you are not happy that someone else has their own opinion that disagrees with yours. Again that is an unfortunate common occurrence now among the less educated.
Have you heard of photo editing software? There are so many great things that can be done today with technology. Possibly you should read up on it?
Spoken like a true less than honest person who is worried that they will miss something during an inspection and have documentation to prove it. So that type of person takes as little documentation as possible to “limit their liability” and give them some sort of illogical “reasonable doubt” to claim “He said, She said”. Do you understand that in a court battle, any court battle, “Documentation is King!”?? You’re misguided concept that you will always be believed because you are some kind of “Outstanding type person” just doesn’t hack it with a judge, jury, or even in the investigative phase.
According to your logic an Inspector should only take close-up pictures of issues if they are going to place the pictures in the report. That Inspectors should not take pictures of absolutely anything else as it may get them into trouble later. That is about the dumbest liability limiting approach I have heard yet!
3 Likes
jdeoliveira2
(John Paul de Oliveira, GB-2 #86934 / AB #44580)
13
And Manny for the win!
One of the best inspectors in town, a friend of mine, started wearing a body cam after a Seller falsely accused him of stealing something from the home. He felt it was sour grapes from the Seller due to the report and did not want it happening again. People will do just about anything to get an advantage, monetary or otherwise, and if yakking away gives them a few hundred to a few thousand dollars advantage by smearing someone’s reputation - and by extension discounting the report- they will do so.
It is weird as f to see people on the mb resorting to some projected image or reputation, instead of presenting reasoned logic.
For those [quote=“escanlan, post:12, topic:152523”]
that is an unfortunate common occurrence now among the less educated.
[/quote]…
A body cam can not prove you didn’t steal anything. Further, a seller can not prove you stole anything w/o evidence (or they may find themselves in jail if they lie).
Well now, here we have a person making accusations about me w/o any proof to support their Defamation of Character against me. Sounds like the same thing your trying to avoid by wearing a body cam.
I was a Special Agent for the Federal Gov for 16 years, so yes I know what happens in court. I also have several Law Firms as continuing clients. As a Home Inspector, I have inspected a huge amount of homes in Nashville, Tn. owned by people in the public eye who expect their privacy to be respected. They have enough money to sue me into oblivion.
“Documentation is King!” No, it’s an infringement of a sellers privacy.
I am an “Outstanding Person” and it does “Hack it” in a court of law. This has already been determined by a Judge several times in my past.
The point here is, you are not entitled to do anything in someone else’s property because you call yourself a Home Inspector without their consent. If you can’t perform these tasks without someone claiming that your a thief, your in the wrong business.
Your not the OP of this thread, if you don’t like my opinion, keep your “educated” opinion to yourself. You have offered anything significant to this conversation. There is no reason to argue with me about mine. I get it, you don’t agree, and can really give a rat’s ass how you operate your business. My opinions are for people that may be on the fence about using a body camera.
Your claim that this is “protection” is blown out of the water with this single statement! Your “evidence” is supported with media that can be edited. Your not a cop. You have no one maintaining a chain of evidence on your videos, other than by you, “the accused”! The police are accused every day concerning the validity of their videos. Video evidence sucks at best, even for the police.
Would you like to quote me where I ever said this?
Oh yea, this is; “That’s an unfortunate common occurrence now among the less educated.”…
So by slinging around your purported background and experience, and with a bevy of Legal Beagels as clients and advisors, you appear to be inferring that an Inspector that performs their job and takes any pictures of other than defects, and any defects that may include any personal possessions whatsoever, might be violating the laws. For the benefit of all Inspectors here, who you would like to convince not to take any pictures beyond defects that do not contain personal possessions, how about providing the specific law that states any actions beyond what you believe are illegal?
I’m sure a lot of Inspectors here would like to remain on the right side of the law lest they encounter someone such as yourself? After all it can only help these Inspectors no?
jdeoliveira2
(John Paul de Oliveira, GB-2 #86934 / AB #44580)
16
I guess taking a video from the front of the house with uninterrupted footage to the end of the inspection does not prove a negative…
but it can’t hurt.
I guess I would also like to see the state laws criminalizing this, and why InterNACHIs legal counsel dropped the ball regarding Ben Gromicko’s, HI attorneys and insurance companies advice that runs counter to yours. They state to take as many pictures as possible. I have had 3 false claims against myself (not theft, but damage) that I was able to exonerate myself and put the blame back squarely where it belonged - onto the Owner, contractor, Realtor - who faced with time stamped pictures were shown as clearly misrepresenting the situation.
Video would have been even better. Too bad there is no down votes allowed on the MB. Everyone has a right to be stupid.
Bottom line that as a CMI, it is all dependent upon the state laws that govern the inspector and/or the inspection. Use of video equipment within my state is allowable as long as the obtained video is not used outside the scope of the inspection. With the use of drones, video taken within a structure, etc, there is nothing that violates privacy when using a body worn camera. There are some inspectors that take photos of every room within a home. Therefore, what is the difference? As to your paranoia reference, what this could come down to is also having the ability to prove whatever may need to be proven (should the need arise) even if it is only needed one time, for something that may or may not have happened, during one inspection out of 1000 inspections. As someone who is an also an educator and teaches on liabilities, there are zero liabilities when following the letter of the law. The thought that “the only time someone has a reason to worry is when they’ve done wrong” is something that an ignorant person would say or think. We live in a litigious society where there are always people who are looking for something for nothing. Why not have a way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to show that things were done according to the standards we are to abide by. Of course, on the flip side it could show issues as well. It’s kinda like it was when I was a cop and camera’s began to come into play. They can help you or hurt you… But bottom line, an inspector who chooses to where a camera is a smart inspector. I humbly own a successful firm. Back last year, we inspected a home, found seventeen major defects (that would have caused most to walk from the home), they didn’t follow the recommendations of the report, yet tried in vain to file insurance claims, as well as a complaint with the state so we might be forced to pay for their $85,000.00 remodel. What saved us? A damn strong report with photos, videos, drone footage, as well as the bodycam footage where issues were well documented with both video and audio. I insisted on the filing of a claim with insurance, as well as their complaint to the state.
So although paranoia may have been the reasoning behind the inspector you referred to wearing a camera, we wear cameras (and I push all inspectors to wear cameras) to hold people accountable, whether that person be an inspector, client, or seller. I can say though, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are plenty of inspectors who would never want anyone watching video from any inspection they perform. Why? Because there are PLENTY of inspectors who would no longer have a license and thusly would not have the ability to conduct inspections. We ALL know that this is truth and this is NOT an inference that you fall into that classification. Just voicing my opinion. God bless