I’ve brought up both of these things with Spectora using their chat (which, by the way, is not manned when I need help after 6pm and on weekends, but that’s another story) and has been the case since I started three years ago. Of course, from them I get "we’re so sorry"s and "we’ll look into it"s, but no changes. So this is a word of caution if thinking about moving to Spectora.
The numbering is different between the web-based report and the PDF. The web-based (and even the PDF summary) use a great numbering system like 2.1.1 but that same comment will be numbered Section B, number 4 in the PDF.
This has caused serious conflict between my clients, builders and myself when two of us were referencing the same item with different numbers. And now I am referencing a report in litigation (not mine) that I am risking the opposing side using one version and picking my findings of the other report apart because of this numbering situation.
The other thing, and arguably more serious, is that the agreements can revert back to the originals after having edited them. For example, I had a custom agreement that I went back and forth on to tweak the terms with the builder. When it was said and done, the big orange box at the top of the work order alerted saying, "Agreements Outdated
This inspection’s property info was changed at 8:08PM on 7/14. Would you like to update your agreement(s) with the latest information?"
Sure, I thought, that’s exactly what I want to do. But guess what it does? It REVERTS IT BACK TO THE DEFAULT AGREEMENT, ERASING ALL THE EDITS! So I sent out the agreement not realizing this and the builder was absolutely livid, claiming I was trying pull one over on him by taking out the agreed changes and hoping he would sign without reading it. Nearly cost me a very $$$ client and worse, reputation.
How many agreements have I changed, edited, updated without knowing, and had signed? Who knows, but I pray that it doesn’t bite me in the ass.
So be warned, anybody who edits agreements or uses reports, there are two major flaws in Spectora’s modus operandi that can get you in big trouble.
I’ve had the same exact issue along with many, many other bugs. And yes, their support is lacking after hours.
I found a workaround that has been working for me lately. It’s stupid that you can’t click save agreement and have it actually save. Once I make an edit and click save agreement. I also refresh the page and that has seemed to work. I’ve had to triple check my edited agreements once I found out they weren’t saving properly.
That is odd. I rarely look at the PDF, but I just went and checked a few and the numbering all matched the HTML report. Did someone create a PDF report outside of the system or something? I can’t see how the PDF view would change a numerical numbering system to an alphanumeric system inside the app. But maybe if someone used a 3rd party HTML to PDF converter?
That’s a good find. Hopefully you made them aware of this issue. When you go to refresh the agreement, it probably pulls a new default copy and overwrites your custom edited one.
My reports are numbered exactly the same, and I never edit an agreement. If they don’t like the terms they can cancel the inspection. And why would a builder tell you what your agreement would say. Are they your client?
I’m not editing an agreement just because someone doesn’t like it, I’m not going to starve over one lost inspection.
That being said, I have never had a client say anything about my agreements. And of course it is worded to benefit me, if I miss something the most I loose is the inspection fee. But I have never once had a call back after thousands of inspections.
The Builder doesn’t tell him what to say. He and the builder reach an agreement. On big commercial jobs this is standard procedure; terms and expectations need to be spelled out and understood beforehand. Jeesh, don’t you talk to people? Most residential don’t even read the agreement.
There can be many reasons to have a one-off agreement. Many of my commercial agreements are tailored for the specific job. I think what the OP has made us aware of though is that best practice would be to save the one-off agreement to your agreement templates, and associate that agreement template with the inspection. That should solve the issue.
I added a couple of screenshots to show the numbering difference. Might be a Texas TREC report thing.
In the case of the agreements, it was a punch list inspection for 32 units of several different sizes. The terms were different, they wanted some specialty things looked at, the limitations were many, and we had to negotiate on what the scope would be. It took a couple of weeks, actually. Then I sent the agreement and imagine their surprise when all the changes were reverted to the original default agreement! Oh they were pissed.
I also have a “single system” inspection agreement where I change the system to be inspected but the rest of the agreement is the same. The default is roof covering, but I’ll change it to say HVAC or electrical panel or whatever they need me to look at. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve delivered a report on the foundation but had an agreement that changed itself to roof covering before I realized what was happening. It’s embarrassing.
With PDF documents, the page numbering should remain the same regardless of the device it is viewed on.
With an HTML or online document, the page numbering will change depending on the browser and device it is being viewed on.
If you are doing litigation work, you should use the PDF version supplied by the attorney, not an online HTML version, so nothing should be different.
2 Likes
cmckesson
(Kip McKesson, Florida HI 12196, CMI®)
11
I was told that Spectora was sold to a VC fund for 40 million and since then the customer service has gone downhill and more push on selling other services. Was good while it lasted but can be frustrating now if your time zone is not MT.
They joined forces with HomeGauge and have dragged that company into the toilet also, with crap service and incessant homeowner’s insurance offers to clients. Too bad, overall.
