I have some down time as I recuperate from prostate surgery, so with your kind indulgence, I will offer some thoughts about our business.
In another thread
Replacing dead front cover screws? - Specific Inspection Topics / Electrical Inspections - InterNACHI®️ Forum
George Wells makes some comments that I not only find interesting but I think worthy of a fuller discussion.
That conversation involved things we often see behind a service panel’s dead front, but his bigger picture comments apply to all aspects of what we do, in my opinion.
Yup, that is the best. But do we have to do that in writing for every defect?
I say no, but certainly understanding the hazard created by the defect is good to have if asked by interested parties. First, let’s summarize our job description found in the InterNACHI SoP.
Do a non-invasive, visual examination
Find and describe material defects
Provide a written report of the found defects
Optionally, we can include additional comments and recommendations.
The “rub” is found in interpreting and who is doing the interpretation of the definition of “material defect.” The SoP defines it as a specific issue with a system or component of a residential property that may have a significant, adverse impact on the value of the property, or that poses an unreasonable risk to people.
Not only will all of us disagree here and there on the severity and importance of various defects; our clients, experts and licensed tradespeople, and other interested parties will also disagree with us sometimes. These disagreements, occasional legal actions, and competition from increasingly aggressive home inspectors have forced an evolution in our business from reporting only “the big” things to just about everything. CYA has become synonymous with a good inspection. Us old timers can debate and lament the changes and the reasons, but I don’t know how you deny them or go back. For newbies, this is the business they enter. Lucky for them, they don’t know any different. Unlucky, for them, it is a tougher business than it was 25 years ago.
In our biz, you ignore an insignificant defect at your peril. Twenty-five years ago, it was easier to shrug off dinker defects, but not so much anymore. “Picky” inspectors get more business, higher fees, and a better reputation. On this forum, we see “soft” inspectors derided, but some of these “soft” inspectors are writing common sense reports that don’t elevate minor defects. (Of course, common sense is very subjective, but that is another topic) Our business has evolved that “pickier” inspectors are preferred by our clients.
I would say that differently, but the inference is that we are doing inadequate training. The realities of our business dictate the training. When Colorado tried to license home inspectors, and we were writing the proposed law; I played a bit of devil’s advocate and stated that if we were serious about qualifications, we would require two years of class work in all of the construction trades and a minimum of 200 mentored inspections. It goes without saying that my fellow inspectors shot me down in a flash. They made the practical argument that those rules would create an impractical barrier to entry into our business and the few complaints by consumers does not indicate a need for that much education.
A “narrow understanding” is the result of time constraints in training but also an acknowledgement that CYA is so much of our business. I think I can sum it up in a sentence…If code says it is wrong, report it as wrong. Explaining why a defect is a hazard and the importance of that hazard are helpful, but plain and simple, for us…being a code violation is sufficient explanation.
We are only home inspectors. Knowledgeable but not experts in all trades and fields. Neither are we code inspectors, but obviously, just about everything we inspect has a code for it. We should at least have a partial acquaintance with the most common code violations. Because if anyone comes behind us and asks if the home inspector reported this issue, the answer better be yes. So then, the next discussion is about how do we report it.
In other discussions on this forum and a class at the Orlando convention, it has been declared that home inspectors should not rate the severity of defects. Just report it and let the client decide how important it is.
In my world, it ain’t that easy. It is not just that all my competitors are rating defects or our reporting programs default to rating defects. My clients and their agents want to know the importance of these defects. Particularly, if it is “health and safety.” Jumping up and down while pointing at the SoP is fine and good in a legal setting, but if I want clients to think they got their monies worth, I will offer some guidance on the importance of this or that defect. So, I agree that we should be able to explain the hazard associated with a defect, our first priority is report it. Most software these days have a default boilerplate explanation that the defect is really bad. No doubt some attorneys have decreed that to be good CYA. But one thing I firmly believe is that ignoring a minor defect is not good CYA.
Some guy or gal fresh out of home inspection school should be able to do an adequate inspection that identifies major defects with a decent portion of minor defects tossed in. Circling back to the beginning here, who decides what is a material defect starts with us. However, ultimately it falls on our client to finalize that decision. To reach their decision they often ask us for guidance. In my market, I don’t think it will go down well with most clients if I tell them I just observe and report. It is up to them to rate the defect.
They expect guidance from me. Afterall, I say it is a defect so what does that mean? Usually, it is sufficient to say it is a code violation. “Ok, but what if I don’t do anything?” Now I enter gray area, maybe a danger zone. It is easy and arguably CYA to go straight to the worst-case scenario description, but is that in the best interest of my client? Sometimes, but not always. So, what to do? I am not sure there is a short answer. In our world, identifying a mountain or a molehill is frequently a subjective decision. Knowledge is your guide. Gravitas from years of experience helps. Having both is important when rating a defect but I suggest to you that downplaying the importance of a defect better be done from a secure position of knowledge and gravitas.
Finally, over and over the SoP is waived in someone’s face as if it is some last word on the topic, whatever the topic is. In general, the legal commentary that I am familiar with, opines that the InterNACHI SoP as a bare minimum inspection. (Obviously, states with their own SoP will determine how it applies to how you are inspecting there. None more than in Texas)
For most of us in states where the InterNACHI SoP is allowed to be our standard, we can inspect beyond the SoP but never less than the SoP.
An attorney here in Colorado explained, that in his experience, judges look favorably on inspectors who inspect beyond the SoP. They don’t look like they are trying to do the bare minimum to make a buck but actually care about doing a best inspection. For those of us inspecting beyond the SoP, we basically create our own personal SoP that becomes our standard for every inspection.
My two cents is that our SoP has been dated by the changes in our business. It is time to update it to better reflect what the vast majority of us are doing and what constitutes an inspection that best protects the interests of our clients.
