Joe,
why “mumbo jumbo.” Are you always this emotional and judgmental?
Keith,
I’m trying to be diplomatic, here. You DO underatand english. Its not hyperbole. Its an accurate description of what you included in this SOP. Its unnecessary mumbo-jumbo.
You have your opinion as to the type of nonsense that belongs in an inspection report. My opinion, as well as the opinion of several attorneys, is that much of it is meaningless.
We will have ESOP members review it and comment on it. We wil then share it with Nick. I can tell you this, IMO one would be out of their mind to include much of this in their SOP. As NACHI’s COE dictates that one should substantially follow the NACHI SOP, we have a quandry; the SOP you wrote is so far removed from others, that one could not substantially follow it of one were to follow any other SOP.
I am baffled as to what the need to re-invent the wheel was. Tell me what was wrong with the NACHI SOP, which has been in effect for over 4 years, and the need to dump it in favor of this. Are you stating that it is flawed, and that following it will recult in an inspector being sued?
If so, show me.
Joe, your criticism is not constructive, it’s abusive, but I don’t think that you realize that. This is not cast in stone, no one has said that it will be adopted, and we’ll have to wait and see what the consensus is. Regardless, we fully intend that this debate include attorneys and inspectors alike.
Sometimes I’m glad I live in Illinois.
Most software vendors are working hard to bring their product in line with NACHI’s SOP. This appears to be an attempt by a vendor to bring NACHI’s SOP in line with their software, IMO.
Here is one very quick observation that jumped off the page before having a chance to actually review the document, item by item.
Changing the words “the inspector is not required to” to “an inspector shall not” eliminates my options to make certain decisions about my business. Here is one example that happened 10 days ago.
My client is buying a condo and is concerned that his real estate salesman cannot tell him how much money is in the association’s contingency fund. He asked if I will include in my inspection any obvious defects that I can find in the common areas to use in his negotiations for price. I include photographs of several trip hazards on the sidewalk leading to his apartment, improperly installed flashing on the deck, and a few other items.
The very last item on this SOP would have forbidden me from making this business arrangement with my client.
I will read the document this afternoon and maybe, by the end of the week, our committee can find something from it to extract and add to the existing SOP.
Nice start…
Several items concern me, but of main significance is the use of the acronym NACHI in specific statements that would clearly transfer all of the onus or responsibility for negligent reports in the hands of NACHI the corporation.
For instance:
Paragraph two, page 1…NACHI property inspectors are professional individuals who…
The use of “NACHI property inspectors” indicates that inspectors are under the employ of NACHI vs clearly spelling out the separate entity and membership status.
Paragraph three, page 1…NACHI Property Inspections are non-invasive and visual…
Again the use of the acronym NACHI implies that the reports are the property and responsibility of NACHI.
The document in of itself is difficult to evaluate or reference with the lack of a “table of contents” or index and a glossary of terms. For instance, without definition or clear concise descriptions what size units do these SOP’s cover. Simplify things and include a dictionary or glossary of terms.
Very nice start.
It also precludes any state (or other entity) from adopting it as an SOP, since not all inspectors in any given state are “NACHI inspectors” (whatever the heck that means).
Good observation, John.
I like what has been done thus far. Times are changing, inspections are changing. I think the document certainly reads better than the current SOP’s of any association. The current industry SOP are overdue for a major face lift, they are vague, and are not always clear to the consumer.
The fact is inspectors are changing industry standards by the use of specialized tools. This needs to be reflected in the Standards. I am not suggesting we should be buying or using Carbon Monoxide testers but most certainly inspectors are using Electrical Tic Tracers, moisture meters, and removing electrical panels, furnace panels, using electrical plug testers. If these are written into the SOP’s its still a minimum standard and reduces overall risk. All SOP remain flexible in that it does not restrict inspectors from exceeding the SOP, and that will be the case with revised SOP’s.
We need to evolve, not remain neutral in the chaning face of our profession and revising the SOP is a good start. Lets not shelve it out of ignorance.
Good work Keith
How about “if it ain’t Broke…”
Perhaps the section headers with Keith’s ‘consumer friendly reminders’ can be massaged into the existing SOP’s without substantive changes to the “what we can and can’t do portions”…
Maybe…
Here is an example of some wording I do not like seeing in our SOP’s:
How am I suppose to know the Voltage… For all I know the electrical system could be suffering from Brown-outs or spiking! I can estimate the voltage but, I certainly can not report it as a definitive.
There must be a far better way to make this statement.
This is just an example of some things that I feel need to be addressed in any SOP. The wording is too absolute and could cause me to be responsible for the Freezer full of meat that burned out due to system browning-out.
Re-writing the SOP is a big project, and it needs to start with two basic questions:
- What is the purpose of the SOP?
- What is wrong with the current SOP?
I’d like to see some reasonable answers to those questions before this project goes along too far.
For me, I use the SOP similar to a Scope of Inspection - a way to let my clients know what is included and what is not. When I exceed the SOP then I let them know that, too. So the SOP doesn’t need to have the various contractual language, disclaimers, narrative descriptions, etc. That stuff goes in the report, not the SOP. For me, the current SOP works well, I don’t see significant problems with it, so I don’t see a need to re-write it. If it were to be re-written as proposed, then I, too, would probably just switch to using the ASHI SOP instead.
By the way, this whole discussion should have been started in the members-only section. It certainly fits the stated guidelines of . . . “Use it to discuss topics that are only relevant to NACHI members, or should not be made public.” I recommend moving this topic, if such a thing can be done. It doesn’t need to be in the public part of the message board, this early in the discussion.
Well, lemme put my old bald head on the chopping block for a minute.
While I have stated for several years that I believe the SOP should be tougher, this doesn’t look tougher to me. It is well written, and well thought out, but seems more to be full of verbiage designed to schmooze the buyer, rather than a document to set a more strict standard for the inspector.
The document seems to make it easier to disclaim, and uses the word disclaim at several places. The paragraphs prior to each section of standards look like something that belongs in an inspectors report, rather than in an inspection standard for an industry.
If we truly wish to toughen our standards, perhaps we should look in the direction of something like (this is very basic and for example only):
The inspector shall:
1. report on the type of roof covering
2. report the method used to inspect the roof covering
3. report as deficient any roof covering that is excessively worn, missing parts, etc.
Look at the Texas SOP. They seem to be the most direct, and stringent. They tell the inspector what to inspect, and what to report as defective.
Otherwise, leave the standards as they are.
Perhaps we can incorporate some type of “consumer friendly reminders” as you suggest. The ESOP Committee will look at that as we consider this proposed change in the weeks to come.
The SOP as published is and will likely remain the governing document regarding our inspection method. It is the SOP that our E&O vendors have based their discounts, certain state governments are in various stages of adopting, and thousands of members have built their inspection and reporting models on all over the world.
The initial review of this proposed change shows it to be flawed by what it contains, what it omits, what it contradicts, and how certain parts are worded.
Joe F. asked a question last night that still remains unanswered regarding the need for a Porter-Valley SOP. If it (our SOP) has failed to stand up under any scrutiny by any judicial authorities to date, no one (including the author of the new proposal) has brought it to NACHI’s attention.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” does not even apply…for we are not proposing to “fix” but to totally replace an SOP that is working without any justification for change even being presented. Perhaps a “tweaking” here and there can be argued, but to dump it in favor of a totally different SOP is just silly.
The ESOP Committee will review this proposal, however, and will get back to the membership and the author with what we find. All input is appreciated.
In my opinion disgruntled consumers are taking inspectors to task in tort either for breach of contract or negligence. The SOP are only guide for the courts to render a decision based on what is expected of the inspector.
The courts look at the SOP to determine if the inspector was negligent in performing those contracted services or whether their was negligence in not meeting the standards, again in my opinion.
I’m in the process of reviewing this proposed SOP and am trying to understansd the intent of the **bold **portion below.
The inspector is not required to:
- Speculate on geological conditions, the type and compaction of soil, or its ability to percolate adequately.
- Water-test or endorse any part of a drainage system, including sump pumps.
- Speculate on the condition of subterranean or concealed components.
4. Endorse any site or system that is less than ideal.
What “ideal” are we supposed to be comparing the “site or system” too?
The inspector is required to:
- Inspect and report on the condition of building walls, **with the exclusion of log homes.
**What about other types of wall construction - “hay bale” walls for instance?
Michael,
What is your proposed language?
I agree with Joe F completely that the use of specialized tools, meters, or equipment should not be included in the SOP. This only gives ammunition to a disgruntled homebuyer when their inspection didn’t uncover something, and they read the SOP. “Ah Ha - he didn’t use a whizbangometer on the kitchen wall - I’ve got him, now!”
How about…
"Inspect the walls, ceilings, steps, stairways, and railings. "
I too agree that specialized equipment should not be mentioned in the SOP.
The more any equipment is referenced, the more we get away from our tenuous claim that we are conducting a visual inspection.
I carry a whizbangometer, but our SOP currently doesn’t require me to use it. 