Proposed Texas Standards

This is the proposed Standard and standard form that is going before the TREC inspector committee next month. I had no part in this.

Sorry. Files too big to upload. Go to and download at upper right of home page.

Proposed Form is not readable .

á>þÿ ’”þÿÿÿ‘ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á5@ ð¿C4bjbjÏ2Ï2 Uš­X­X*.ÿÿÿÿÿÿˆ$´˜#˜#˜#Pè#ôÜ$œ´¡Md„%„a-(0-0-0-.¤³0,ß1˜ M"M"M"M"M"M"M$ORWQFM 6 .. 6 6FM0-0-ÛMd8d8d8 6v0-0- Md8 6 Md8"d8†8ÆxFH0-x% €Ä’þ‚UȘ#–6šG4KìqM0¡MGìiR07ÖiR(H´´iRH,w2hß2Jd8)3

John, all I get is gibberish when I try to download the files from your website. If you like, send me the files, I think I know a way to post them here.

I sent them to you Mike. I also reposted on my site with a .doc extension. Should work now.

Then you got the right files . . . . . . :stuck_out_tongue:

Yep…that fixed it, thanks! I also got your e-mail with the files as well.

Is it this verbiage that sticks in your craw?

This property inspection report may include a pre-inspection agreement (contract), addenda, and other information related to property conditions. If any item or comment is unclear, you should ask the inspector to clarify the findings. It is important that you carefully read ALL of this information.

This inspection is subject to the rules (“Rules”) of the Texas Real Estate Commission (“TREC”), which can be found at

The TREC Standards of Practice (Sections 535.227-535.231 of the Rules) are the minimum standards for inspections by TREC-licensed inspectors. Inspectors are permitted, at their discretion, to exceed these minimum standards. An inspection covers only those components and conditions that are present, visible, and accessible at the time of the inspection. The inspector is not required to move furnishings or stored items. The inspection report may address issues that are code-based or may refer to a particular code; however, this is NOT a code compliance inspection and does NOT verify compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions. The inspection does NOT imply insurability of the structure or its components. The inspection report may contain references to certain safety concerns. However, this inspection is NOT a safety inspection, and the inspector is NOT required to identify potential hazards unless specifically required by the Rules.

In this report, the inspector will note which systems and components were inspected (I), not inspected (NI), not present (NP), and/or had deficiencies (D). Deficiencies include the following: broken/missing parts or entire components, improper installation, not functioning properly, functional obsolescence, and certain safety-related conditions. Comments may be provided by the inspector whether or not an item is deemed deficient.

For buyers:
This property inspection is not a totally exhaustive inspection of the structure, systems, or individual components. If an item is not identified in this report as having been inspected, it was probably not inspected. The inspection may not reveal all problems or deficiencies. A real estate inspection helps to reduce some of the risk involved in purchasing a home, but it cannot eliminate these risks nor can the inspection anticipate future events. To reduce these risks further, it is recommended that you obtain as much history as is available about this property, including any seller’s disclosures, previous inspection and/or engineering reports, building/remodeling permits, and reports performed for or by relocation companies, municipal

You can get the files from John Cahill’s site or:


Committee Work TREC Form 1-12-07.pdf (85.5 KB)

Took me a minute but I get it now…

There are so many errors I will not detail them at this time. I will comment on the Standard form preamble you ask about.

In my opinion, :wink:

It may have a direct conflict with the SoP and there is no reason to duplicate text that exists in the SoP Scope. I know key members of the inspector committee oppose the mandatory E&O law. I believe this is their way of trying to put up some type of defense against expected claims. I wonder if underwriters will sell insurance in Texas.

Will repost comments after typos fixed

One thing I notice is that the proposed SOP clearly states that it is for 1-4 family residences only:

That is a change from the prior SOP in that TREC staff has said they pertain to all inspections of real property, which would include even commercial inspections. If the proposed SOP is adopted then that will no longer be the case and Texas will have no commercial SOP at all. That will allow use of the iNACHI commerical SOP if so desired though I suppose. ( )

I do like the fact that an opinion on foundation performance has been eliminated.


I wonder why the sub-committee feels it is so necessary to define the details of inspecting a dishwasher? Seems out of sync with the rest of the proposal to me.

Proof we’re supposed to do the realtor’s job also. When do our fees go up?

A deficient system does not automatically obligate the seller to make repairs or take other action, nor is the purchaser required to request that the seller take any action.

Yes you do not have to use it for commercial

The original proposal was “report when the foundation needs leveling”. That was problematic.

I think the new wording is WORSE than rendering a foundation performance opinion.

“Report foundations in need of remedial work or further evaluation if applicable.” If you do not refer to an engineer or make a repair recomendation on every home with a history of distress you are going to get sued. Its just a case on the expert against you and the insurnace company. Now imagine that one of the experts (or both) are the guys you ate a steak with a few weeks ago. That scares me!

One member continues to think inspectors should prescribe foundation repair. He simply beleives inspectors should determine if repair is needed and that is a tough thing to do on one visit to the home. In this case he inserts a passive referral clause. It conflicts with Scope however.

Scope: Inspector is not required to recommend or provide engineering, architectural, appraisal, mitigation, physical surveying, realty or other specialist services.

You need to oppose “Report foundations in need of remedial work or further evaluation if applicable.” by demanding foundation tolerance criteria.

Someone once said “All you have to do is render an opinion . . . . it does not have to be right”. True perhaps but expensive to defend.


That sure seems to be the opposite of the FAQ on the TREC website. I also have that specific question into you know who at TREC Enforcement since before Christmas but she has not and likely will not respond:

Please be gentle…:slight_smile:

SoP Chairman lobbied for reduced training hours. He said there was a shortage of inspectors. Now he seems to be taking away the consumers negotiating edge in the standard form from an Official TREC perspective. Sometimes I think “He also hates inspectors” but its just a complex document to write…

But he does like to get his toes tickled by TREC attorneys in mini-skirts. Jeez…I can’t believe I said that. :mrgreen: [/size][/FONT]

Mike, perhaps you are correct. I cannot find my email from TREC. If such is the case the way to go in this business is commerical. Your own SoP, form and contract.

Be gentle . .ha. Actually we will create a mutual defense group. We all stand back to back and fight off the droves of realtors telling the consumer “they have insurnace that pays for what they miss, just buy by price of inspection”. :shock:


For those who do not know TREC has a lot of pretty staff members; a commitee member has a foot in a cast. The threat was to tie him up and tickle his helpless swollen foot until he wrote the SoP the way we wanted.