I am posting to ask questions and to learn. I have not initiated litigation. I am in a difficult situation and looked for help.
Can you explain how I would know as a consumer that the term crawlspace applies to singular and/or plural in a report?
Robert, in choosing your inspector, you admit that you relied solely on a recommendation from one of only a few parties in the world who has a personal financial interest in the results of your inspection. That is nuts. The other party is the seller. Would you rely solely on the recommendation of the seller in choosing your inspector? Of course not. The seller is trying to sell you the home… well… so is the agent.
Non-members don’t have access to this: www.nachi.org/education.htm and so should never be used for inspections and no agent should ever recommend a non-InterNACHI member. I’m not saying that you can’t get a good inspection from a non-member, nor am I saying you’ll always get a good inspection from an InterNACHI member… but a buyers agent has a fiduciary duty to improve your odds of getting a good inspection by recommending only InterNACHI members. She failed at her duty to improve your odds.
It appears as though the inspector did mention “the” crawlspace was inaccessible. It doesn’t seem like he knew that the single access point was not the only access point but may have thought it was the only access point to the entire crawlspace? If that’s the case he did the right thing by reporting on it as inaccessible and recommending evaluation when it’s made accessible.
If it’s obvious the crawlspace areas were not connected, on different portions of the house separated by a basement or other, then I would say the inspector didn’t, but should have, report on the foundation on the other side of the home. If there is evidence such as vents at the exterior then he should have noted the crawlspace under the other side of the house was inaccessible etc.
To say it’s a fact that the other area was accessible may or may not be true. That’s the problem here really and there’s a good chance he didn’t know about the access or he probably would have inspected that portion of the crawlspace. Was the access covered by carpet or storage items? Who knows and there’s no way to really prove it. The inspector noted “the” crawlspace which I think indicates he likely thought there was one crawlspace access but not necessarily one portion with a crawlspace. I’ve been in several crawlspaces that where sectioned off and only accessible by one main access point. I refer to this as “the” crawlspace and if a portion is inaccessible I would say the portion of “the” crawlspace under the (whatever room/s) was inaccessible etc.
I understand this now. Trusting any individual during a real estate transaction is NUTS. I suppose I can reduce the odds but when I was purchasing a home I was simply put naive. I did some research but I was told and it was recommended to hire a buyer’s agent and that I could rely on their expertise and would protect my interests.
This whole thing is nuts if you ask me…thanks for the input.
It does, in a way. I know that if I were to enter the area that you described and had full view of it as your inspector didn’t and the crew that you hired to further investigate it did, I would have immediately detected that it represented only a section of the entire crawlspace.
Are you saying that the people who followed up on the inspector’s recommendation to have the crawlspace evaluated ALSO missed the fact that there were additional areas?
I must say thank you to everyone who is providing input to this discussion. I appreciate the constructive criticism. I really am just attempting to figure out what this community considers to be a prudent approach to home inspection and did I receive a one?
I do realize that’s a difficult question to answer with limited data as people are pointing out. Hopefully this will help a bit. I am providing a google docs link to the report with all personally identifiable information removed (couldn’t find the attachment link in the post message form). See below.
I can supply additional pictures and report that can support the main assertions that the inspector should have identified multiple crawlspaces. In his report he should have viewed between the rafters in the basement next to the stairs (see 1st photo -page 33 - upper left joists). It is very difficult to see how how could have missed that. In my opinion that is a MAJOR miss. I am also concerned with his lack of photos of the bedrooms.
I have no idea how an experienced inspector could have been confused about the separation of the crawlspaces. He could easily have seen the boundary of the single crawl from the pictures he took of the inside of the crawl and from the shape of the basement…not to mention the extrusions of the outside water spicket and a huge 1 1/2 sump pump discharge pvc pipe sticking out of the front side etc…
Obviously there are many issues that he identified correctly, which I needed to be concerned with and have since followed up with. But for me, in this report (maybe in my naivety) the major issue was the asbestos and the dirt crawlspace.
As I stated previously, I discussed this concern with the inspector…if the other foundations were good, then it was a go. If they were bad, then I would not have purchased the house. I had the asbestos removed and crawl looked at before.
Let me know if anyone has problems viewing the report.
There is a whole lot of truth in this. First time home buyers are “easy pickin’s” for real estate salesmen looking to close a deal and collect a commission. IMO, no first time home buyer should rely upon the recommendation of ANYONE who has a financial interest in the outcome of the sale for a home inspector.
Right on, Nick.
I never asked them! It didn’t even cross my mind. I was totally under the impression that the rest of the foundation was a SLAB.
Remember, at the time, being a first time home buyer, I had no clue about such things…
Robert, we do not know what state you reside.
Over 34 states have licensing laws, most of which allow for basic inspections, and limit what an inspector checks. If your state does have licensing, I suggest you also check those laws, rules, and regulations. This is an example of how home inspection state licensing hurts home buyers.
I live in Rhode Island. This state prohibits exculpatory clauses and extends the statute of limitation to something like three years. The statute for home inspectors is here:
and for real estate sales the statute is here:
Rhode Island Real Estate Sales
That’s where I stopped reading. ](*,)
A Statute of Limitations and your suggestion referencing exculpatory clauses does not change the Fact that the Crawl Spaces were noted within the report as** “Not Inspected”.**
Did you read the report? Do you still maintain that position?
I take the position that this language is highly ambiguous and do argue that this ambiguity given both context and truth, is extremely damaging. I claim that my purchase of this home was based on the exclusionary nature of this confusing language and his failure to clearly warn me of the need to further investigate completely separate foundation areas.
It is not accepted that this language or approach is both prudent and responsible given the nature that I am not an expert in the area of home inspection.
Furthermore, the position that the home inspector in questions fails in his duty to prudently report on the visible conditions of the structure and warn me of any major issues, is documented by multiple articles of evidence. In his own report he alludes to the existence of other crawlspace areas by looking for a separate entrance which is completely opposite of the location he was in under the basement. But the primary article of evidence is the fact that he does not prudently scan the perimeter of the interior of the basement. Had he done so he would have found a clearly visible, accessible, and unobstructed access point into the “OTHER” completely separate crawlspace. Secondary, the inspector failed to locate a visible, unobstructed, and accessible hatchway located in the master bedroom closet. Statements will support that the closet hatch was available at the time of his inspection. Tertiary evidence is his lack of prudence in not photographing nor documenting extremely visible vents on absolutely opposite ends of the structure consisting of completely separate construction.
This is not too mention the followup discussion with the man and the fact that I will testify he said the other areas of the foundation were fine.
Do you still have this?
How many months/years has it been since the inspection was performed?
Yes. We still have it. The seller agent should also be able to produce since he issued it in the sales brochure. Of course that is if he abides by the three year rule.
It has been 1 year and three months since the date of closing.
Documented floor plan should help a lot.
It’s hard to say who is at fault here, apparently it isn’t you.
Good luck!
You can argue all day.
Fact:
- You purchased a home and chose not to be present for the inspection
- The crawl spaces were listed as “Not Inspected”. (whether there was an access point is not relevant).
Robert,
From all of your postings, 2 Facts remain clear.
- You chose not to be present for the Inspection
- The crawl spaces were “Not Inspected” and reported as “Not Inspected”.
I really would like to know how you can support your assertion that the plural “crawlspace” is documented as “Not inspected” in the report?
Additionally, even if you can prove your assertion without question (ambiguity), how does that keep him from performing his contracted duty to inspect items that are clearly visible, accessible, and unobstructed? Especially with preponderance of evidence?
I was going to explain my absence to you but it occurred to me that this “FACT”, as you state it, is without merit.
My presence was not a contracted duty.
My absence did not excuse him from HIS contracted duty.
This is a legal fact documented by the contract both parties signed.
Therefore the claim that my absence should somehow be taken into account has no legal basis and therefore must be disregarded.
It could be asserted, however, that by being absent, my decision to purchase the house relied more heavily upon the prudence of the inspector and the accuracy, correctness, and clarity of the wording in his inspection report.
Countering that I was negligent is baseless also. Again, there is no contracted duty for me to follow any of his recommendations since they are just that…recommendations. Again I point to the contract we both signed.
However, I did responded promptly, reasonably, and with prudence upon receiving the report by following up with his many recommendations and by discussing any issues with the him promptly.
Robert,
You suggested that the Inspector reported the Crawl Space as “Not Inspected”.
His contracted duty is to Inspect and Report on areas Inspected and Identify those areas Not Inspected.
It appears the Inspector fulfilled that contractual obligation.
I am aware and have previously reviewed Contracts by US Inspect for clients of mine.
It is unfortunate that you made a purchase decision without exercising due diligence.