Reimbursing a client for leaking water supply pipes

Archive Public Archive
1

Originally Posted By: jgallant
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Got a call from a client today who I did an inspection on a 2-year old house for on 12/31 last year. He tried washing his car, but no water came out of the front hose bibb. The house had a winterizing feature where supply pipes could be turned off and drained. He turned on a shut off valve to let water flow to the hose bibb and it leaked in the garage. He asked me if I checked the hose bibb. I said I checked at least one since I measured the water pressure (reviewed my report), but I told him that if the hose bibbs have those foam winter covers on them I don’t routinely take them off, but if they’re uncovered I check every one I can get to that has a handle. I also don’t operate shut-off valves. And herein lies the crux of the biscuit as Frank Zappa used to say. You know why I don’t operate shut-off valves, I explained this to him and his response was that it was only a 2-year old house. Still, I don’t operate them and still won’t in the future. I’m writing him a check for $65 for the plumber’s service call, and I guess I’m thankful that it only amounted to that. I guess my resolution is to document every hose bibb I don’t check, and modify my contract and scope and limitations to explicitly say I don’t operate shut off valves.

–
-Jim Gallant


Owner, All Point Home Inspections - Poulsbo, WA www.allpointinspections.com


Co-founder, ReportHost (Web-based report writing service) www.reporthost.com

2

Originally Posted By: dbowers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


If something is turned off - like the electricity to the outbuilding; the basement shut-off valves for outside hose bibbs; the shut-off under a toilet; etc. our Standards, the ASHI, NAHI and every state that has licensing Standards - say we don’t turn them on to check. Most of us have inspection agreements that also say that, and most of our reports have a simple comment like - “Water to outside hose bibbs, turned off. Outside hose bibbs not operated. Verify operation prior to closing with seller”.


So where and why in there did you feel the need to give him money??

3

Originally Posted By: kfulton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


There are times that appeasement is cheaper than argument. $65 is a pretty cheap and easy solution. However, you should follow up with a letter of agreement or a release form, that this problem is a one time complaint and that he is satisfied with the resolution.


See... http://www.nachi.org/dear_nachi1.htm
![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

--
Kelley Fulton
True North Home Inspections

...things you think about in dark spaces...

4

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Jim,


I would actually make it part of the requirement for them to sign a release, before issuing them a check. One you have the release, send them the check.

I do agree this is a pretty cheap resolution and I don't think you could have asked for much more. If you were to go another route and try fighting not to spend the $65 you would end up with more time and aggravation that if you just paid the money out.

In the release you should state the facts, especially that you followed the standards of practice and this was not your fault, although in the interests of the clients you will pay for the repair.

Modifying your contract would be a good idea, since you don't want to leave others clients with false impressions and that would certainly be in their best interests.

Joe Myers

5

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Jim


You did the right thing. Whether or not you were wrong you stepped to the plate and made it right.

I unconditionally back all my inspections.

Except paper cuts from reading the report. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Mike P.

6

Originally Posted By: mrose
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Jim,


You may end up getting some good marketing from your client. I know for a fact that if you didn't pay the $65 you would big the biggest skunk around.

Joe Myers is correct about have the client sign a release of any and all future claims.

Of course you could offer an exclusive "Gallant Lifetime Warranty'. It works like this: Client, Hey Jim I got a bust pipe and you need to pay under my exclusive Gallant Lifetime Warranty'.

Jim, No problem I'll be right over.

Jim, Do I understand correctly that you want to exercise the exclusive "Gallant Lifetime Warranty'?

Client, Sure do.

Jim, Here's the check and then you shoot him. Thus ends the exclusive Gallant Lifetime Warranty' which ends precisely at the time of the covered parties expire.

--
Mike Rose
Cornerstone Home Inspection Co. LLC
Lawrenceville, GA

www.cornerstonehomeinspect.com

7

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


You guys are more generous than I. Wherever something is in a winterized mode (such as the hose bib described herein), I note it in my report, and exclude it from the scope of the inspection. I also notify the client at the time of the inspection.


Next time, ask him if he'd have been willing to repair the busted line and subsequest damage he inadvertantly caused, by instrcting you to charge a winterized line during your inspection. Yes, imagine that line freezing and splitting shortly after your inspection. Imagine the damage.

He wouldnt ? No? Oh, yeah... what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

8

Originally Posted By: jremas
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Kelley makes a great note on the subject and that advice sounds good to me, especially with the followup. It will be the best $65. you spend as long as you make sure they are satisfied and put it in writing.


Joe F. also makes a great point. I too will mark whether or not the hose bib is a frost free type or not, whether it is winterized or not and note that any hose bibs that are winterized will not be tested (for damn good reasons) and the bibs that are winterized may require attention/repair or monitoring. I do this because I have alot of vacation homes that are winterized and the few times that I did turn on the valve to check the hose bib I will filling the basement/crawlspaces with water from busted. leaky pipes. Most people do not have the valves set up right nor do they drain the lines properly and the left over water expands and busts the pipe. The plumbers around here are very busy every year do to the same problems over and over.

--


Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com

570-362-1598

9

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


This is what I call a nuisance call-back. There’s no real legitimate reason for it. In my inspection contract and report I note quite forcefully that I am looking for major defects. Due to the nature of real estate here, I actually define a major defect. I have this paragraph in my contract, in my cover letter to my report, and in my report in appropriate areas:


Quote
The purpose of the inspection is to document the general, overall condition of the structure and to identify major defects that are present at the time of the inspection and that, in HOMETEAM?s opinion, might affect the typical home buyer?s purchase decision or the use of the property for its intended purpose. A major defect is one that is capable of detection by reasonable visual examination only, and that requires an immediate financial expenditure of more than $1,000 to prevent significant deterioration of, or damage to, the property.
Unquote

In this case, the hose bib certainly cannot be considered a major defect and certainly is not going to affect his decision to purchase the property.

This paragraph usually prevents the nuisance call-backs. However, if you do want to give him $65 for marketing purposes, the release will help prevent him and his Realtor from telling the world that "if anything goes wrong after the inspection, ABC Inspections will pay for it." You don't want to go there. If you let people put their hands in your pockets, they will. And if you let them take money from your pockets, they will do that, too. And if you happily let them take money from your pockets now, they will happily take it in the future, too.

My release form releases me from any and all future liability, basically voiding the home inspection report. So I'm kind enough to point out to them that they are forfeiting any liability down the road, and since I have basically 5?-year liability here, they usually are not willing to sign a release for $65 and give up any major claims in the future. I explain everything to them quite carefully and clearly and advise them to consult with their attorney before signing any release forms. Advising them to consult with their attorney before giving up any rights can be very important in your locale, and not doing so can void the release form.

Our industry, being as young as it is, it not so black and white, so consult with your attorney (and possibly your E&O insurance carrier) before giving anyone any money back for work you have done.

![icon_twisted.gif](upload://xjO326gspdTNE5QS3UTl0a0Rtvy.gif)

--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

10

Originally Posted By: dbowers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


they would not get even $45 back without signing a General Release of Liability BEFORE any money changed hands. Joe F. - I’m with you 100%. If I screwed up OK - I pay. If I didn’t screw up, you don’t get a nickel - EVER!!


If you will let them, many relestators, buyers, sellers, etc will try and make you become their "Cradle-to-Grave" Insurance Policy. One of the things I've noted over the years from new inspectors, is the thought process, that if a client calls 2, 3, or 7 months later and says - this quit working, or started leaking - sending money - will be a good PR tactic.

In my neighborhood, its called being a pushover or soft touch - most realestators know who these guys are - thats why they use them.

Thats not my idea of PR - but to each his own.

Its also about doing whats right and doing what you say you will.

IF YOUR REPORT definitely said the thing was not operated because it was turned off, winterized, etc AND your inspection agreement said you don't test or operate things that are shut down, winterized, etc - AND they went ahead and bought the house without having a seller or realestator get it dewinterized or operational, THAT IS THEIR STUPID MISTAKE, and they would now like you to PAY for THEIR MISTAKE.

If you BITE into that - its YOUR STUPID MISTAKE

You will however get on the realestators "A- List" of GOOD Inspectors to call. You will eventually start getting more and more of those type of SEND ME MONEY CALLS because thats how YOU have PORTRAYED your business.

The worse part of all this is that you have now helped keep promulgating the realestators and general publics thoughts that we should pay for any petty things that might break after they move in.

11

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Nice post, Dan. I should send a margarita your way but I drank them all last night.


![icon_twisted.gif](upload://xjO326gspdTNE5QS3UTl0a0Rtvy.gif)

--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

12

Originally Posted By: jgallant
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Thanks for your thoughts all. With regard to this situation, I fault myself for not having a strict policy to date of documenting all hose bibbs that weren’t evaluated due to being winterized, and recommending that their operation be verified before closing (see Dan Bowers’ first post). This is the main reason why I’m covering the client’s plumbing fee.


Regarding a release, anyone have an opinion of the NACHI sample release?

http://www.nachi.org/release.htm

I've been told that writing something to the effect of "Release from all liability" in the "For" part of the check can also serve as a release, and many clients won't sign or cash the check when it's written this way.

--
-Jim Gallant
Owner, All Point Home Inspections - Poulsbo, WA www.allpointinspections.com
Co-founder, ReportHost (Web-based report writing service) www.reporthost.com

13

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jgallant wrote:
I've been told that writing something to the effect of "Release from all liability" in the "For" part of the check can also serve as a release, and many clients won't sign or cash the check when it's written this way.


That works in some areas and not in others. Check with your attorneys.

![icon_twisted.gif](upload://xjO326gspdTNE5QS3UTl0a0Rtvy.gif)

--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

14

Originally Posted By: dbowers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I’ve never yet had a buyer turn down money, but who knows. From your last post, I know see why you’re giving him money back. Without something in the report saying it wasn’t checked - your idea is probably your best and easiest solution. Good luck.