Bunch of commi$$ion hangry brokers wining about the lost deals. Most of the ones that commented had no idea about the buildings, unfortunately they walk around and discourage buyers from getting the HIs.
“I too lost a buyer because the inspector said we had truss and structural damage to our roof. Had in two roofers and both said no truss or structural problems.”
There are a bunch of comments about inspectors that sound unethical or overzealous or novice. But…
I bet a good chunk of the hostility in the comments section is misplaced anger and/or selfishness from realtors/sellers who are ignorant of the SOP’s and such, though. Like this woman, Sandra - these things sound reasonable:
We’re selling our condo in a 200 year old house and the inspector noted that the original wide pine floor in the kitchen “squeaked” when you walked on it. He also advised our buyer that the furnace was a certain age, because of the “series date” on the furnace. There were at least 50 other questionable comments on his report, including a hole in the ceiling (where we had changed the location of a swag light). How do you make a big deal out of replacing drywall in a laundry closet “as a fire-stop” when said closet is adjacent to a 6-8 foot open doorway?? Sorry, but you guys are the used car salesmen of the realty world.
I could see a lot of conflicts ending just like this quote from the end of the article:
The seller suing the inspector because of the deal falling out is rare. In my experience with over 600 inspector claims, only one was of this type. We responded that the home inspector complied with the Standard of Care and reported material defects as required by published Standards of Practice, thus fulfilling his/her professional obligation. This particular claim went away,” says Casey.
That said, I think there should be more training and education required. I’m surprised Texas just reduced the amount of required education hours by a little over 50%. I got my license while it was still 400 hours and even then I don’t think most people would be ready to do it on their own and do a good job.
First, we have no way of knowing if any of this is legit. I get that. But the theme is consistent. Home Inspectors jumping to conclusions, using canned narratives or boxing themselves in.
“He claimed there was pest invasion of a load bearing beam. LOLO!! The beam is not load bearing and there are ZERO signs of termites,”
“I had mold in my attic that would cost over $1500.00 to repair. This was they way out of the contract because I believe after signing our contract but how can a home inspector put a price tag on something that he is not certified in?..”
“I recently had one disassemble my air handler in a rather complicated setup with multiple floors, dampers and a whole house ventilation system. Now my 3rd floor will not cool and the ventilation system is all screwed up.”
"I had an inspector that came out and said that the foundation basement wall was “bowing” in and recommended getting a “contractor” out to access the wall and put up steal beams."
And the canned narrative from Spectora
“The liar even claimed the roof should be inspected by a roofing professional to be sure it’s good.”
Does this include a roof limitation or disclaimer statement? There is this one I see over and over in Spectora reports that encourages home buyers to have the roof inspected by a roofing contractor (even when no deficiencies were observed). Please correct me, but this appears to be a canned narrative which accompanies many Spectora reports.
It would be nothing that can’t be removed. There are absolutely no narratives built into Spectora. The narratives are in your template, which is 100% customizable from narrative wording, to section and header titles, to what you label as your deficiencies as. The only thing Spectora controls is the formatting.
The curious thing about comments of any type is how inclusive they want their opinion to sound from their very limited (one or two) experiences.
The smartest Master Auto Technician I ever knew with years of experience only had two comments about, “What’s a good car?” The first was simply, “I only see the ones that break.” and he might add, “I can tell you what I like to work on.” He was totally honest about the limits of his experience even after decades on the job.