Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
This is an article that I can very much agree with. “Specalized” instruments can be life savers, but not in the way that most people would think.
In this article, Keith didn't rely, totally, on his laser level. He used the lazer level to find an otherwise not readily visable defect and convert it into a visable one, by pulling back the closet carpet, which one wouldn't usually do (or be required to by any SOP I know).
Whenever I see water stains on a rafter, I use a moisture meter to check the area out, both absoluetly and in relation to non-stained adjacent areas. In such a case, I see (visual) an indication of water leakage. I then use the meter to determine if it is active (but ONLY at the time of the inspection) or inactive. Most older roofs have had leaks and, therefore, have stained rafters. But this does not mean that the roof or rafters are currently bad. Basing the final determination on a tool can mean the difference between describing a past problem that has been properly fixed and a current problem that could lead the client to backing out of the house.
We don't want a client to buy a house with big problems, but we also don't want a client to not buy a house because of fixed problems.
I especially like the point of a narrative report. Checklists can be very subjective, being either - or in nature. Narratives, if written properly, are much more descriptive and aid in reporting the whole story.