Originally Posted By: eedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I missed a recalled heater in an attic I read the exclusion page but I was wonder if I should be responsible to replace it. I’d appreciate anyone’s advice. Thanks
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I would consider a recall outside the scope of the inspection. If you state in your agreement that you follow the NACHI scope of inspection then you are specifically covered. There are simply too many recalls some of which are hard to find or aren’t well published for us to keep track of and find in an inspection. What was the heater?
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
My first question would be; “How do you know you missed it?” Did the client call you and tell you that you “missed a recalled heater?”
There are several questions that I would ask before I could give you an "educated opinion," but in general, Blaine is correct. Just because an item has been recalled, doesn't necessarily make it your responsibility to point it out OR replace it.
Having said that, quite a bit of my training to become an HI, and some of my continuing education classes, specifically addressed certain recalled items. In particular, the horizontal heating units usually located in attics. I was taught not to look for a specific model, but to look for the problems that led to the recall.
Your post was somewhat vague so this may or may not apply to you specifically, but in my opinion, education is the best defence against raising our liability and avoiding costly mistakes. Our second line of defence is our inspection report and our pre-inspection agreement.
If the property you inspected is still in escrow, you still have breathing room. Can you give any more specifics as to what led to the discovery and where they are in the real estate transaction?
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: eedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Well the deal has alredy closed. I inspected the house in june of this year. She called the gas co. to have the heating turned on and they red tagged it because it was by premier. At the time of the inspection I wasn’t a member of NACHI and she wasn’t present at the inspection so I didn’t have an agreement signed. I was wondering if the exclusions were for all inspectors in general.
Originally Posted By: ecrofutt This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If you don’t have it already, consider adding a clause similar to the below to your inspection agreement.
B4U Close Home Inspections does not research product recalls or notices of any kind. A basic home inspection does not include the identification of, or research for, appliances and other items installed in the home that may be recalled or have a consumer safety alert issued about it. Any comments made in the report are regarding well known notices and are provided as a courtesy only. Product recalls and consumer product safety alerts are added almost daily. We recommend visiting the following internet site if recalls are a concern to you. www.recalls.gov
With no signed agreement specifiying exactly what you were going to do and what you weren't going to do, you are kind of hanging out there. Did your report specify a standard of practice that you followed in the inspection? Did that SOP say anything about recalls?
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Here is some info on the recall. Supposedly the furnaces which were on the recall were only installed in California, and that because of the extra part the environmentalist whackos demanded for air quality.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning consumers in California that certain gas-fired horizontal forced-air furnaces manufactured by Consolidated Industries (formerly Premier Furnace Company) present a substantial risk of fire. There have been about 30 reports of fires and damage to homes associated with these furnaces, as well as failures of burners and heat exchangers that can lead to fires. The furnaces were installed exclusively in California.
Consolidated manufactured approximately 190,000 of these furnaces from 1983 through 1994 under many different brand names. Most of the furnaces were manufactured under the Premier/Consolidated labels. All of the furnaces can be identified by the fact that they are equipped with steel control rods installed above the burners. These steel rods were required to satisfy California air quality regulations for nitrous oxide emissions.
Many of these furnaces are still in use. Normally, the furnaces are installed in attics, although some may be installed in crawl spaces. The Commission is warning consumers to have their gas-fired furnaces inspected by a licensed heating contractor to determine whether the furnaces are subject to this safety alert. The contractor also should determine whether the burners and/or heat exchangers of units are damaged, or whether wood under or near the furnaces shows signs of damage, such as charring or blackening. If this is the case, the furnace should be replaced immediately or repaired.
Because Consolidated is currently in bankruptcy liquidation, the availability of repair parts is at this time unresolved. However, there is on-going private litigation which could enable consumers to recover at least some of their out-of-pocket expenses for replacement or repair of the furnaces.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
the unit at the time of inspection?
If you followed procedures and deemed the furnace to be in safe, working condition at the time of inspection, there is no need to feel obligated to purchase a new unit for the homeowner (in my opinion).
However, if you didn't provide a thorough inspection of the unit, it may be that you did a disservice to the client and should compensate them as such.
Our contracts, exclusions and Standards are not meant to be used as shields when (if) we are negligent. They are designed to set boundaries and limit our scope to "general" services.
The combination of your ethics, standards of practice, inspection report and contract should answer your question for you.
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: chorne This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Edgar,
First and formost, never perform an Inspection without
having a SIGNED agreement.
In the NACHI standards of practice read Definitions and Scope
#1/1-1 in particular
I think that it is a good idea for you to be very familiar with our
standards of practice in the event of a complaint so that you
can give an educated response at the initial conversation.
Originally Posted By: dhartke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jeff,
Well stated.
I must stray a bit, however, from the root of this thread with questions.
What additional precautions should we take or watch for while inspecting or testing a heating unit during the cooling season? Heat differential? Thermostat change from cool to heat? Thermal shock to system? Anything else?
Originally Posted By: dhartke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Carla,
Do you or anyone or everyone present a copy of our SOP to the client at the time the agreement is signed or upon delivery of the completed report? Is the mention of the website location in the agreement adequate?
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Something to that affect, or whatever the reason may be. We continue with a visual evaluation and if warranted, "recommend further evaluation."
As for inclusion of our SoP:
(IMHO) It important that the client knows the "scope" of a home inspection. I make it a practice to briefly outline (verbally) what I will be doing in the course of my inspection before I begin, and before the client signs my pre-inspection agreement. I always include a copy with the report. If there's ever a question as to what was inspected, or why something was not tested, it's in black and white, right in front of them. No need to search the internet.
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: psabados This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi David
I've got to go along with Jeff for the reasons stated. I also include a copy of the NACHI SOP with the buyers copy of the report. I also carry a spare copy to the inspection just in case my client may have further questions after discussing the inspection agreement.
To: E.edwards
The SOP and your report format should guide you through the inspection process. If, for some reason, lets say a furnace, was not operated or inspected, you need to disclose that verbally and text it into the report why it wasn't operated or tested. Do not assume because its 95 or 100 degrees that the furnace is functional or maybe its a clean looking newer model. Spell out in some detail what you did and did not do.
Another case for completing reports at the office rather than on-site is the ability to review in a relaxed atmosphere. No stress and strain with trying to complete a report rapidly, for agents who want to get moving. This also gives you a second chance indicate the items that were not inspected, for whatever reasons.
The old saying An ounce of prevention is worth. . . A whole bunch of bucks later!
Originally Posted By: dhartke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks Paul and Jeff, but I must admit I am surprised to hear you include the SOP with each report, simply because I have never read a thread mentioning any kind of reaction or comment from the client when he or she receives the 28 page SOP. It looks as though “we don’t do” more than “we do”.
It makes perfect sense to show them exactly what they get for their money though.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I must admit I don’t include the NACHI SoP. I include the CREIA SoP. They’re almost identical in content with some minor variations, so here’s why.
My report is in a custom three-ring binder with custom printed tabs and illustrations. The SoP I've included is also custom made SPECIFICALLY for these binders. I don't want to put "cheesy" computer paper into the package.
Having said that, I am currently in the process of reproducing the NACHI SoP in the same presentable format along with being cost effective (I currently pay almost nothing for the CREIA SoP). Once perfected, I will submit it to NACHI for approval and production.
Woops, I think we're off topic
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi Dave,
it's only a safety in numbers deal, adhering to your associations SOP's just gives you a defendable position, nothing more or less, The plain fact of the matter is that if we as an org raise our SOP's so that we are doing more, our members have a better defendable position than inspectors who use the SOP's of any other trade org. let's not forget that the final test of any SOP could be in open court with a jury deciding "what passes the test of reasonableness" (LORD HELP US)
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I don’t include the SOP with my report. My inspection agreement is two pages long, written in Arial 8 point, and spells out what is inspected and exclusions or limitations. It also states that we inspect to NACHI standards and that a copy of those standards can be provided if requested. My attempt, although sometimes feeble, is to not put anything in the report which isn’t directly related to the house being inspected, because I want the report to be the focal point. Hence, no summary sheet either.
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
let's not forget that the final test of any SOP could be in open court with a jury deciding "what passes the test of reasonableness"
If that is the case then we will be on that proverbial creek in the wire frame canoe without a paddle 
I don’t include the NACHI SoP. I include the CREIA SoP. They’re almost identical in content with some minor variations, so here’s why.