Originally Posted By: Brian A. Goodman This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’m sure one of those is technically correct, but around here if you call it anything other than an “underground service” you’ll only confuse your client. Reports should be written for the client, however much deeper our own knowledge might be.
No offense intended Gerry, I know you're only trying to educate us.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
No offense intended Gerry, I know you're only trying to educate us.
Hi Brian, none taken, I am in fact trying primarily to educate myself 
You are correct though, we do tend to get bogged down in terminology sometimes to the detriment of a clients understanding, Knowing your stuff and being able to explain it effectively are sometimes not the same thing.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Brian A. Goodman wrote:
Reports should be written for the client. . .
True, but our recommendations should be written for the contractor who may be called to repair something. Proper terminology is essential knowledge (IMHO) and the ability to simplify it into laymen terms is an essential skill.
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: cradan This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
: “So, I’m out at 123 Main Street, and I’ve got a copy of your inspection report. What do you want me to do here?”
Inspector: “Well, it’s not what I want you to do, it’s what’s recommended to be done for the homebuyer to increase or improve their safety/functionality/property value/etc.”
Contractor: “Oh, okay. Well, the report says this East side exterior outlet is not grounded…you want it grounded, right?”
Inspector: “Yep, that’s correct.”
Contractor: “All the way back to the service panel?”
Originally Posted By: Brian A. Goodman This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
[quote=“jpope”]
True, but our recommendations should be written for the contractor who may be called to repair something.
I can agree to a point, but there is a limit to how far an HI will want to go there. The primary responsibility for the repair is on the professional making it. Still, a good HI should at least give his client enough to know what the other professional should be try to do.
Proper terminology is essential knowledge (IMHO) and the ability to simplify it into laymen terms is an essential skill.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
" for an HI, which often use more technically correct terms like “service lateral” (underground service) and “ungrounded conductor” (hot wire). So those more technically correct terms need to be understood by an inspector, even though they most likely are not used in reporting defects to clients.
Now, if the question had been ... "how should this be reported" ... then in my opinion "underground service" is a better way to describe that. Gerry could have even been very devious, and worded a question with an incorrect answer that included the term "underground service" ... 
Just my opinion and 2-nickels ...
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
