Our company has performed many re-inspections as most here are aware of. Most people know they are getting credits the dont qualify for and they know it so they think by making it hard on the inspector they may luck out. Now with that being said we know the re-inspection program is flawed. I do see a need for it but it needs the highest qualified inspectors and better administers.
Here is one of the basic problems with wind mitigation. The original MSFH program did not require and research for the permit. The inspectors were told specifically, just ask the home owner. When the program ended they carried that model to the retail market. When the re-inspections began, the smart ones started to cover themselves. This is just one reason why you can not compare an old wind mit to a new one. The other big one, was pictures, some have been taking them since the MSFH program. When you factor form changes, it is a mess.
I think you may have misunderstood.
I am the original inspector.
Both houses have roof permits which are available for the public to access at anytime.
Both original inspections had copies of these permits included with the original reports.
Both houses were losing their FBC credits after a QA re-inspection was completed by one of the Citizens vendors.
In both instances the QA-Inspector said that no proof was available to prove the install date of the roof coverings.
Both issues were resolved AFTER I forwarded copies of the roof permits to the agents.
Both homeowner’s will have the FBC credit for roof covering re-instated.
It is just frustrating to have to deal with these issues. Its even more frustrating knowing that the re-inspections being completed are as bad if not worse than some of the original inspections that are out there.
Worth repeating
I also do a quick permit search on every home I am going to inspect. If permits are available I include them in the report.
I consider this part of the service I provide for the fee that I charge.
John you are 100% correct. This is just one example of many things that have changed since the MSFH program. Completing a re-inspection under today’s standards on an inspection that was completed under a complete different set of standards and labeling the differences discrepancies is misleading and unconstructive.
IMHO
So, the QA inspector lied and in effect, committed fraud. That is the frustrating part.
I just went through the same thing with someone who isn’t even a client. Two minutes, two pdf files and an e mail later, all is fixed.
Not quite understanding what happened here because ALL re-inspection reports are checked by Citizens auditors with a full permit search of their own. If they find one and the report does not reflect it…it goes back to the inspector for a do over.
it is fraud if it favors the consumer. if it favors the insurance company it is not considered fraud. 
Worth repeating…
Bert
If that is the case, then why are all of these issues arising?
I have never seen a re-inspector change his report, even after evidence is brought showing that he was incorrect.
On one I just consulted with, the garage door was not rated on the form. The lady had the documentation right there from when it was installed, including the NOA number. That is as fraudulent as it gets.
It is quite obvious, even to the most naive, the the inspectors are being told to overlook things that may get discounts.
As I said before, it won’t matter in 5 years and I am changing my estimate to 3 years.
- You will not see the change because it was done before it gets released. A QC or remediation inspection can be requested after the fact.
- The garage door may have been an oversight on the part of the inspector or the docs were not provided at the inspection…auditors have no way to contradict without a permit.
- This inspectors are NOT told to overlook things to avoid credits. Just the opposite is the truth. Be careful what you say.
- You may be correct, only the statement should say that ONLY the carriers will be conducting the inspections.
]1) You will not see the change because it was done before it gets released. A QC or remediation inspection can be requested after the fact.
See attached
-
The garage door may have been an oversight on the part of the inspector or the docs were not provided at the inspection…auditors have no way to contradict without a permit.
A permit was pulled and all of the installation manuals were present when the inspector was there. He also said the truss to wall connection was not visible due to insulation. I have never not gotten the picture to show what was there. -
This inspectors are NOT told to overlook things to avoid credits. Just the opposite is the truth. Be careful what you say.
Then what is the explanation for the numerous complaints that are posted on FaceBook pages, blogs, and anywhere one can post them? I have seen it first hand. -
You may be correct, only the statement should say that ONLY the carriers will be conducting the inspections.
The inspections will go away as, if everything works out as planned, in a few years, the premiums will have risen enough to compensate for any gains anyone may have gotten now.
This may be their procedure but it does not appear to be followed.
We have been hired by 4 clients to conduct a third wind mitigation inspection because the QA re-inspections were in direct conflict with the original report.
The first homeowner we visited was having ALL of her credits removed. Upon reviewing the report it was marked on just about every section that there was no visible access. This homeowner told us the guy was there for approximately 15 minutes and DID NOT access the attic space other than to “poke his head in” from the pull down ladder. All credits were re-instated after we completed the inspection and submitted the report with all necessary photos.
Now I need to preface this by saying not ALL of the re-inspection are bad. The second client we visited was having the Roof to wall credit, decking credit, and roof shape credit removed. Upon inspecting this house the QA re-inspection was 100% correct AND in my opinion I’m not so sure the ORIGINAL inspector ever entered the attic.
The last two were incorrect and were easily fixed by providing copies of the permits. (these two cases are completely separate from the two that prompted me to start this post).
I have received three requests from agents/homeowners to review the original wind mitigation inspection my company provided. Two of those were the permit related issues regarding the two home’s roof coverings that I mentioned in the opening post.
The other one was the removal of a roof to wall attachment on an inspection completed nearly 4 years ago through the MSFH program. The homeowner had non-wrap straps with two nails. When I completed the original inspection there were no nailing requirements for “clips” in place. I had to re-visit this home and explain to both the homeowner and the agent why the change was occurring. The QA inspector was 100% correct to reclassify the roof to wall as toe nailed because the lack of the third nail. The question for me is why do I have to explain this? Should the company hired to complete the QA not be the one providing this explanation? Or perhaps the insurance provider and or agent?
Why is it the original inspector has to defend his selection made 4 years ago under a completely different set of standards the one responsible to explain why the standards have changed and why the selection is different?
In my opinion this program is not designed to correct the accuracy issues prevalent throughout the wind mitigation credit process.
IT IS designed to present a view that wind mitigation credits are not working as intended and need to be eliminated. That is the end game.
What’s your point Eric? The comparison report looks good to me. If the photos of the RTW didn’t show the number of nails then it would have been rejected and fixed before the report went out. As far as the outcry from the public goes…can’t you figure that one out. Nobody likes to pay more for insurance and this is their way of venting. They should be glad they have had years of discounts that were not warranted in the first place.
There are outlier inspections in this program that are indeed incorrect and should be noted. However, these are the only ones you hear about in the news. I am working right now on a past client that had a re-inspection done by one of the Quality Built IMC’s. They appearantly include screen porches that are NOT attached in the roof shape. This negated his hip credit, which I am trying to correct for him.
I agree that more information is needed for the policyholders on how these inspections work. Things get tweeked all the time and this is what is happening to WM’s since the MSFH program, which was a joke. This may cut down on all the crap that is out there about how bad the system is.
The point is, the re-inspection is wrong.
A) The home is CBS not “100% wood frame”.
B) The roof to wall connection was wrong on the original, as it should have been clips more than likely, and is still wrong on the re-inspection because now it is a toe nail because, the inspector couldn’t see the nails…or so he claims.
See the attached.
In picture 3, you can see the top of the wrap with one nail in it. You can also see two rusty nails coming from the other side.
Had he gotten clear pictures, it would have shown this to be a single wrap.
It is one thing to “pay more for their insurance” as you put it, it is quite another when it doubles or triples. Even worse, gets dropped altogether and force-placed insurance is implemented.
I would agree that many of the prior inspections were done wrong. I tell people every day who want a new inspection, that it may not be in their best interest as they will probably lose credits.
The whole point of the re-inspection program, supposedly, is to make sure everything is correct. Obviously, it isn’t working as I am not the only inspector who has run into this.
[quote=“jdeese, post:25, topic:71087”]
I also do a quick permit search on every home I am going to inspect. If permits are available I include them in the report.
I consider this part of the service I provide for the fee that I charge./QU
Same in my shop. It is they reason I charge what I charge and just part of the customer service we provide.
We probably help reverse a couple of reinspections a month. I’m probably sent 3 a week from agents to review and advise. In most cases I agree with the reinspection findings. (Not my reports that are reinspected). However, we do see the some sorry a s s reinspections that really make the whole system a joke. These we jump on and have reversed them regularly.
We have not had problems with our reports being reinspected. Changes in forms or homeowners removing their accordians (because they were ugly) have been the only issues. If a client informs me that they are being reinspected, I attend at no charge to the client. All iin all, the reinspection program has been a big benifit to my business. My competitors seem to get more wrong than right.
with minimum premiums on the horizon, wind mits won’t be worth spending even $50 on pretty soon. JMO, but I think we are discussing the flaws of a dead man walking.