If the only items in the report that are mentioned are items that are defective. No mention of any items that were ok or working properly.
Is this type of only reporting on what was defective ONLY a report that meets the NACHI Standards of Practice?
Chuck
The NACHI SOP is just the bare minimium required. Most inspectors reports will reflect items working or okay.
In a word, yes. Same with all other standards of practice.
Your real estate agent will show you the property and most listings will highlight all of the wonderful things to be found there. The home inspector is looking for material defects and is reporting them to whoever contracts him.
You both missed my point. EXAMPLE BELOW
Per SoP’s 2.1. Roof
I. The inspector shall inspect from ground level or eaves:
A. the roof covering;
B. the gutters;
C. the downspouts;
If the building has a concrete tile roof with rain gutters, downspouts and NO visible defects. Does the SoP’s require the inspector to say ANYTHING about those components(leave blank in report) or state: 1. Concret tile -servicable. 2. Gutters- servicable. 3. Downspouts- serviceable?
If left blank or no mention does report still meet SoP’s?
Chuck
All SOP’s are not like NACHI’s, both states I work in require reporting on many items whether good or bad. In some cases its just a simple requirement to indicate the item was inspected but the item has to be listed in the report.
The requirement to only report material defects is only true in a few states, this allows the realtor friendly inspectors to overlook thousands in repairs. (20 items x $200 each is not pocket change to many buyers). Both states I work in require all problems within the SOP to be reported in a manner as described in the SOP.
Chuck, the SOP would have to say “report” or “describe” instead of just “inspect” in order for it to be required in the report. You have no state SOP in CA so inspectors can do a very minimum there, they can do 3 to 4 houses a day where we have to work 12 hours to do 2 correctly here.
You missed my point, Chuck.
As you point out, the inspector will “Inspect” the various aspects of the roof from the ground or eaves. He is inspecting for defects. If he does not find any, there is nothing to report.
Your choice of word…“serviceable”…is a great example as to why. It is a meaningless word for an inspection report that has caused many people to come up with their own definitions creating much confusion.
If the inspector uses a computer template or some checklists, he is likely to include information to describe the type of shingle…but the SOP only requires that he reports on its condition if he finds a defect, in which case he will describe the defect.
Chuck,
I report on the material of the components. For example for the roof, I might say “asphalt”.
I’ll report its estimated age, and any defects I find. If it is fine, then I don’t say it is “servicable.” I just don’t say anything other that what it is.
Everything is servicable if you want to sink enough money in it. If it’s a defect then say so. Otherwise I don’t mention it. You aren’t going to mention that the toilet in the upstairs bathroom flushed fine with no apparent blockages. If you get into mentioning some things are in working order, and you omit something else it could be a problem.
Bottom line, I report what is there per the SOP, and then I report the defects that I found.
Define “servicable”.
What is “servicable” for one person, may not be “servicable” for another.
Example: A faucet in the master bathroom drips/leaks. The Mrs. Buyer complains it keeps her awake at night. The Mr. Buyer couldn’t care less. Doesn’t bother him at all.
Are the homeowners able to wash and brush their teeth? Yes. Inconvenience? Yes. Annoying? Yes. Defect? Yes. Servicable? Yes. Performing as intended? No.
To all,
Thanks for your input. That is what I was looking for.
Thread drift. What do you think of the term “Appeared servicable”
As in— Condition of bathtubs and related plumbing: Appeared serviceable
Chuck
I agree with Jeffrey. “appears serviceable” is goofy. How does one service a bath tub? The term “appears serviceable” might work with an older boiler.
Either state that it’s functional or its not. Appears serviceable makes you look like you “THINK” it works. Your client is going to get a perception that you really don’t have any idea about what your looking at.
I deem the word functional ‘almost’ the same as servicable.
“Appears Functional” could be used for an AC unit that couldn’t be tested. An electric water heater that had its breaker turned off because the home is vacant and is only a year old.
Huh? How could something turned off and not tested “appear functional”? I think you are “assuming” it to be functional which, IMO, could have you buying an AC unit or water heater for somebody, someday. That breaker might be off for a mechanical reason.
“Not Tested” is what I use to describe something I did not test.
Though you do not have a standard practice in your state, I would recommend that you look up a state law (many states utilize similar standards to one another), the verbiage they use or require is a good place to start.
As posted already; when the SOP states “the inspector shall report/describe”, put it in your report. Otherwise, it’s like taking a contract prepared by your lawyer and changing it with words “you made up” and expect it to still be a legal document.
I prepared a report template that addresses in the report exactly what the state law requires. It describes what the inspector is required to do, not required to do and lists specifically what must be reported. The template adds selections below to click on to describe that which we’re required to describe.
A copy of this template is on my website. I have also posted it on this bulletin board elsewhere.
I received numerous positive and negative responses to this format (saying that the report is too short). The fact of the matter is if I complete this report without adding anything else to it, I am in compliance. If I write up a 50 page report and do not include this information I am not in compliance. The object of the game is to complete the minimum requirements and add to it.
Inspectors want their reports to prove that they did something to justify their fees.
It’s difficult to go through a house and not find anything “significant” to report on and charge $600 for the inspection. However, this is just how it goes sometimes.
Your inspection agreement and often your inspection report covers the fact beforehand that only “significant issues” will be reported on in the inspection report. Why do you want to add 600 more items that are okey-dokey for everyone to “wade through” (in some cases they have to wade through it in the report and summary again)?! They are not paying for the inspection report by the pound! That’s what they do in the government. They weigh your correspondence to determine it’s worth without considering its validity.
Make sure that your inspection agreement states that the inspection report covers items of significant deficiency only and don’t worry about fluffing up your report.
“1.3. An Inspection Report shall describe and identify, in written format, the inspected systems, structures, and components of the dwelling, and shall identify material defects observed. Inspection reports may contain recommendations regarding conditions reported or recommendations for correction, monitoring or further evaluation by professionals, but this is not required.”
Directly from the INACHI SOP, it is quite clear, your report needs to have more than defects listed.
Most inspectors are looking for compliance (in many industries), noting both properly working systems and noting system defects.
Brian,
Now that is the answer I was looking for!! SoP’s are written for a reason! Usually no wiggle room.
Thanks!
Chuck