NEW Txas roof standard

The proposed Standard (SoP) states “inspect fastening of roof covering material, as determined by a random sampling”.

What this means. According to SoP Chairman Fred Willcox, he pries up composition tabs using a putty knife and looks at fastener on every roof. He then reseals the shingle with mastic. Mr. Willcox, the SoP Chairman for the past 12 years has been trying to get this into the SoP for 12 years. It has been in, then taken out, then put back in. Fred told the sub committee on a recording that he puts crazy stuff into the SoP as a negotiating tool for other items. I think this is a similar and poorly conceived effort. It is also evidence of poor technical writing skills when you bastardize a document for negotiating purposes. Peeling up tabs on shingles is destructive inspection and the legislation will be words no one follows. The majority of roofs we see have a demonstrated history of acceptable performance and even in the event of a wind blow off the consumer is protected by insurance.

The scenario is even more ludicrous when other types of roof materials are considered.

Am I going to object to it? No. I think Mr. Willcox’s lack of foresight is his legacy. Its wonderful proof of regulatory irresponsibility. Let it stand and I’ll laugh at Txas with the rest of the country.

Now for those of you who ask “Why are guys like this put on committee?”. The answer is they serve the desires of the Realtors and bureaucrats and justify it with “protect the public”. Left wing politics in Txas.

Hm, according to John M., everything is wonderful in the licensed state of Texas. Could he be wrong?

I don’t know John M. but his posts seem as opinionated as mine.

The fact is TREC wants the inspector to pry up tabs. What do you think about that?

Its spelled Txas, not Texas. TREC has made Txas is a four letter word. More left wing rules than a savior mentality can write in a lifetime.

Thats bloody nuts John, what’s the guy smoking, any older shigle will break as you attempt to lift it, plus as any windstorm inspector down here will tell you: the fastener type and frequency can be seen from the attic.



I have spent several hours reading this SoP (today). There is enough verbiage to ignore his opinion of lifting tabs. I think I am letting myself get fooled by his comments in a public meeting. Those comments do not establish procedure but they do aid in setting precedent because the enforcement attorney is sitting there listening to him. The SoP do not require specific lifting of tabs but makes you responsible for fastening.

“Report deficiencies in fastening of roof covering material as determined by random sampling.”

I agree looking in the attic, as well as considering years of demonstrated performance history, should suffice. When these SoP pass I will submit a request for interpretation that states we will not pry shingle tabs. See what they say then.

John C.,

What if the roof was decked with 3/4" or thicker sheathing? Fasteners may not be visible from the inside. This is not the norm but is possible. What if the fasteners are not visible from the inside and you can find no legible grade markings on the decking? Would we now write it up as no legible markings, fasteners are not visible from the inside and the fasteners “might not” be correctly applied, recommend evaluation by a roofer? Or would we now be forced to start breaking brittle shingles, and damaging sealing material, by lifting them to inspect? The requirement is still, under some circumstances, either forcing the Inspector to lift shingles or refer it out to a roofer to lift shingles.

Another question is what does TREC consider an acceptable random sampling to satisfy these requirements? Since several workers are generally on a roof at one time it is entirely possible to miss one person’s poor work if a random sampling of only one roof plane is performed.

The discussion of licensing is greatly hindered by exaggerations and mocking.
No set of laws if above debate and tweaking. I have never said that Texas HI laws
have no need or tweaking.

What I get tired of is lumping all state licensing into one group and making broad
and exaggerated predictions about how horrible it is or will become. It just does
not play out that way at my house.

Based on my 10 years experience, The Texas SoP has never bothered me.
So who should I believe… the voices of doom or my own eyes.? I am
an intelligent man and enjoy a good spirited discussion. I just get tired of
hearing canned speech about an issue that needs facts applied to each location.

I agree, weak laws produce weak results. That is not the case in all

Regarding John C. post, he is giving us text that is being thrown into the pot
for a “proposed SoP” change. As John even stated, he may have over
stated his original post. Thanks go to John C. for being honest.

I do not pay too much attention to all the bantering about proposed changes,
because it has been going on for so many years, I stopped counting… ,
and nothing much has changed.

I get up and go to my inspection, enjoy the day, and come home with a
thankful heart that the Lord has provided a way for me to feed my family.
I love my job and NEVER think about Texas laws. I do more than what
the law requires anyway.

So when I hear the voices of exageration and doom, it’s hard for me to relate to,
just to be honest. I am pro InterNACHI and many share my views.

It would be reasonable to depart from the requirement due to its infrequency. The SoP state twice you do not have to damage the roof and
it is reasonable to argue prying tabs is damaging.

Scope indicates you are not required to recommend anyone or report consequence. Just report the condition and be quiet.

The original SoP used the term “representative homogeneous”. They got stuck on “homogeneous”. They said consumers and inspectors were too stupid to understand the term. I think they did not understand it themselves. I swear they giggled when they read “homogeneous”. Not sure what that meant.

So I guess random is . . . . well random. Spit in the air and check where it lands. As far as number of exposures? They don’t say. Random can mean one location chosen in a chaotic manner. Some argue the universe was created with random chaos; I think the same applies here because I don’t see the big guy coming down to point at the area desired.

Here are some test questions if you have read the SoP.

  • Does TREC permit you to damage the roof when inspecting it?
  • How high is one story?
  • How long does your ladder have to be?
  • Define “near proximity”
  • If you deem a condition unsafe for yourself who has to agree with you?
  • Do you have to describe every elevation you did not see?
  • Do you have to describe every field you did not see.
  • Do you have to move leafs?


John C.,

I agree with you and thanks for the laugh!! :smiley:

John M, I am more ‘in your camp’ than not but I do tend to pay attention to the bantering and the proposed changes and I do think about the Texas laws probably more than most since I live in the state capital and can attend the meetings regularly. For what it’s worth, I met with the Inspectors Committee chairman last night for awhile and he feels confident that the Commission will accept the proposed SOP and then it will go for another 30-60 days of public comment and then be formally accepted and implemented. Like myself, John and others have been saying for a couple of months the proposed SOP is going to happen and it will happen by year end so I advise everyone to brush up on it and get ready. Now, on the other hand, I also do not feel the proposed SOP is as onerous as some other folks may tend to believe but time will tell. No, it’s not perfect and it will evolve over time to address any issues. I pointed out to the chairman last night that, based on a simple word count, that the TREC SOP far exceeds any trade association or other state’s SOP and I also told him I suspected he approved of that and was probably even proud of it…he just smiled :slight_smile: .

By educating the client that some conditions may be conducive to other issues
and recommending further evaluations and repairs, as needed, by a qualified
Professional… you are covering your self and have less liability IMHO.

Your mileage may vary.

The fact is the SoP Chairman verbally explained to subcommittee and visitors that he thinks inspectors should pry tabs up. The requirement was put in, taken out, then put back in. taken out, put back in. The SOP Chairman champions that argument and admits he uses it to negotiate SoP items. The devil however is in the words. It does not say “pry up”. The question is how will Enforcement interpret that into the SoP? They were there listening to him. Easy to solve with an RFI after they pass and easy to depart from as well. I don’t pry tabs up now and will not in the future. It is a waste of consumer money.

John M is right. TREC is no big deal. There were about 250,000 inspections done in Texas last year. There were 3 or 4 agreed orders against home inspectors. TREC only gets 2 or 3 complaints a month and the vast majority are dismissed. One has more of a chance of committing suicide by poison then getting a substantial TREC complaint. Gosh why are we even regulated? TREC did not cause quality . . . fear of lawyers and or a desire to excel did. What a waste of money. BTW, Realtors get many more complaints than home inspectors and the financial impact is much more significant.

John M is right again. Just go do a good job and your not likely to get a TREC complaint. Believe it or not one of the more common complaints is from agents who got their feelings hurt by the inspector. The client was happy however. Moral: don’t tell the agent to pound sand.

Lastly, there have been some chicken s*** complaints by inspector against inspector. Retaliatory stuff.

I would probably spend more time reading all the proposed changes… but I have
heard so many for so many years… it is hard for me to stay interested in it. The
vast vast majority of the rumors and changes have never happened. BTW…
I have read the proposed SoP, but had to force myself to do it…:neutral:

Hey… has it been hot enough for you? You could cook an egg on the back
of my head when the sun it out…:mrgreen:

I have submitted written request to include consequential language in the SoP especially in the area of safety. In 1996 (before your time) we had to report 5 specific items as hazardous. That consequential language was removed in 2000 for secret reasons. I will venture a better than educated guess it was alarmist language. My request for consequential reporting requirements or safety advisories have been ignored. The IC thinks the measley safety addendum that few have read satisfies that.

So while I agree with you and I do what you do, the SoP are clear. You do not have to recommend specialists or report consequence. Now that’s safety with a capital S and true public protection. :smiley:

Thanks for the updates John C… you da man.

Living proof that old men can inspect houses…:mrgreen:

Mike is right. Larry has cut a deal with the TREC Chairman in the back hallways to get them passed in October with implementation in January. We knew that 6 months ago.

There is a way to delay them but I am not going there. I say pass em and I will adjust as needed. It’s really simple.

You are right . . . they are a terrible read. The average consumer will be easily mislead but then very few will ever read the blather.

One big difference between them and INACHI is the requirement to get on the roof. Again, easy to handle however.

I think the biggest thing that bothered me was the idea of spelling ‘Texas’ another way.
Wait till all the bar-b-que restaurants hear that they have start changing all their signs…! :slight_smile:

I get the address; look it up on Google Earth; check the tax roles; write the report then drive over to take a picture and explain the findings. :wink:

You sound like the local tax assessor.