TPREIA letter to TREC Commissioners and IAC Committee.

I agree and do the same.

My comment was in reference to Paul’s explanation. If we were to have a “code change” area, the buyer might think we did a code inspection.
Am I being picky on words, yes. But for liability reasons, we shouldn’t quote code whether verbally or in the report. Instead, we can say something to the like of “Today’s construction standards require…” etc…

Comment on “1) An option standard…”, again, which would be the code base? This would also mean that every few years, this code base would have to be updated.

Reaction to the video: Funny how the bureaucratic solution to over regulation and excess increased, nonsensical complexity is to offer greater regulation and complexity on top of it. Can you imagine people trying to navigate reports that contain not only sections by system and subsystem, but also delineated by comment type within that? lets see, we could have: TREC SOP Defects (non-code related); TREC SOP Defects (code related); Code related non-SOP defects; Code related non-SOP safety improvements; Non-code related non SOP defects; Age related/wear and tear items; maintenance advice; Cosmetics, etc.; etc. I love it when people who do not understand nor are involved in the process offer suggestions for those who live the profession and run the committees to carry out. I applaud Brian’s reserve and tact in responding to some truly absurd “suggestions”.

TREC does not need to be in the report standardization business. Neither TREC, the IAC, agents, brokers, or inspector associations need to have any say in how many pages a report should or should not be - The report is not intended for any of them. The only people who should express ANY opinion as to how long a report should be are the consumer and the inspector. Those consumers who want short reports can seek out and hire inspectors who produce short reports. Those who want more verbose reports can seek out inspectors who produce the style report that suits them. The agents can focus on serving the needs and desires of their client and not managing inspectors.

The free market system facilitates consumers finding the service provider that they feel best suits their needs. They don’t need a state agency to dumb down the profession so that all that is available is generic mediocrity.

Well said Chuck.

It’s not hard to use whatever box is there and then simply …

Observe and report.

What you write about the property condition to make it clear to the buyer is what is important.

Inspection reports (in Texas) were not designed to be repair lists for buyers or sellers. There are no required repairs or required inspection.

The definition of professional has always been (IMO) the ability of independent thought and opinion based on education and experience.

The TBPE or the TBAE doesn’t have forms for its licensees.
Neither does the TDLR. No national inspector association has
such a form.

Check boxes… so important?

My policy is to follow the rules, pay Caesar and keep going. You want a check box? No problem, I’ll check it.

It’s the information you supply about condition, function or minimum building standard that serves the buyer. A buyer needs information in order to make their own decision on whether to purchase or not. They are asking you to help by hiring you. A check box or lack of check box will never change that.