I just got these 1 minute ago and wanted to get them in front of the people ASAP…here is the final SOP and Rules for Home Inspectors. I will put more out later this evening or tomorrow evening as to the thoughts of the council and what you think.
2012_Chapter_468_PART_XV.doc (63.5 KB)
and the one below
Sorry had to split it up into two sections…I am working and just wanted to get this out ASAP…
Home_Inspector_Rules_Proposed_Part_I.pdf (97.7 KB)
Does the following statement mean that the scope and such must be provided to client before the contract or is it being in the contract sufficient?
Failure to provide a copy of the
dislosure of the scope and exclusions of a
home inspection prior to contracting for or
commencing a home inspection in violation
of Section 468.8321, F.S.
Inspector shall make recommendations for correction and/or monitoring, or
further evaluation of the deficiencies that the inspector observed
I think that is big time wrong
a) The materials used for water supply, drain, waste, and vent piping;
Not always visible
Licensing is destroying this profession and going to have you all on the hook for things you cannot predict.
My advice is do not let this pass then do all you can to remove licensing period. You all had to have this and now you get to be told what to do at every turn. What a mistake licensing is :roll:
Wow. A Manual “J” calculation is now a standard part of every Florida home inspection. Interesting as to how the required background to perform this is not a part of the licensing process.
Licensing solves nothing.
This State is screwed up for sure.
If you wanted licensing I hope you feel like the fool you are.
You forgot this part …
“Inspector shall make recommendations for correction and/or monitoring, or further evaluation of the deficiencies that the inspector observed.”
That part can be pretty tricky if you are unfamiliar with all of the factors/formulas that are involved in calculating when a heating or cooling capacity is or is not “deficient” and you are required to “make recommendations for correction” in your inspection report.
Its pretty hard…unless you have been doing it for the last 18 years…:roll:
The only reason some have issues with this is because they have been using whatever SoP they use, as “the” standard, not a minimum standard.
I have no issues with the new SoP at all as I already do everything and more that it requires.
I already filed an objection with the council regarding the BTU or KW requirement asking it be stricken if possible. I don’t want to throw any wrenches into the works though and if it stays in I won’t care. It may be different elsewhere but here the techs rarely if ever marked off the KW of a heating coil or added the lable for it on the air handler. Also the heat pumps do not have a direct conversion to BTU’s on a heat cycle as they do in cooling mode. I know there are methods involving amp meter readings X voltage resulting in calculations to compute KW… I’d prefer we don’t go there in the SOP. I recommend service on a yearly basis on all of them.
Not so tricky:
“the inspector recommends the unit be repaired/updated by a licensed HVAC contractor” or “the inspector recommends the system be monitored and serviced on a regular basis by a licensed HVAC contractor” etc.
See it doesn’t say you have to make specific recommendations as to what needs to be done just that you have to point out that it needs repair/monitoring or further evaluation. Your reading too much into it.
I read this to say that insufficient (or “deficient”) capacity of a perfectly operating system not reported by the ex-plumber inspecting the home would be considered an incompetent act and inconsistent with the standard of practice.
Heating and cooling capacity calculations and reporting are universally omitted from the scope of a home inspection in every other part of the country where home inspection standards are written and/or enforced.
Guess I read it differant. I read it to say “report on the BTUs or KWs”.
In Florida the KWs are written on the unit by the installer and the BTUs can be found from the data plate. If either is unreadable you state that is the case.
However I do agree we shouldn’t have to report on it. I believe it can too easily turn into what you already think it is.
Back to the OP:
Russ,
Mostly what I see (beside the typos) is the contradiction on the appliances and the reporting on the HVAC size. I don’t much care weather we need to inspect the appliances or not but we need to have one or the other not both. As for the HVAC, although it’s not a problem to report the KW/BTUs, I worry that it can be taken in the lite that Bushart sees it and for that reason would rather not have to do it.
I’ve been reporting the BTU’s or KW for…well, since I started. It states in the standards that the inspector doesn’t have to report on the adequacy… Indicating monitoring, repair, replace etc. is part of the report. By the wording of the SOP, it could be as simple as “The air conditioner was nonfunctional, repair or replace”.
How about testing washers and dryers?
You think that may flood a house or two?
It sucks do not sign off on it.
Do all you can do to stop it.
Then try to remove licensing period.
I run the washer and dryer for the client if they are going to remain with the house. I think it would be better to know if the laundry drain was clogged, or if the washer leaked during the inspection, than the day the buyer moves in. I’ve found both too many times to be pursuaded differently.
Per 61-30.807, (e), Interior Components, inspector is not required to inspect appliances;
Per 61-30.809 (1), Household Appliances, inspector is required to inspect appliances;
Per 61-30.809, (3j), inspector not required to confirm operation of every control or feature of a system or appliance
Question: Which applies? 807 or 809? If 809, which do I turn on?
range: RF or LF burner: RR or LR burner: which side of 2 oven stove?
dishwasher: how many settings or which features?
garbage disposal? run water thru it or do I have to bring along food scraps? If food scraps, can I buy them pre-packeged from the NachiStore?
Per 61-30.811: (1) says I have to inspect retaining walls; 2(b) says I do not have to inspect earth stabilization measures - isn’t that what a freakin retaining wall is?
61-30.812 (k), (l) and (4d) provide the inspector is not responsible for WDO, pollution, mold, radon or will provide a warranty/guarantee. Shouldn’t this mean, by rule of law, we can not be sued for failing to report on the presence or absence of mold, WDO or any claim against latent/hidden defects? If so, E&O should no longer even be a consideration. Understand you may exclude these in your contract, understand things like radon, etc are by separate license/service…just saying, if statute prohibits these BY LAW, …This is a good thing.
WELL, THAT IS CONSTRUCTIVE. Some of these are points for consideration, this is what Russell was asking for. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancies you percieve.
I posted the same thing before the Orlando meeting but heard nothing of it, so either it was not presented, discussed or reported on. So, I am trying again.
