I called out defective/inadequate diverter (kick-out) flashing at the front roof-line. I also pointed out the cut-back/bottom-edge of the stucco-to-roof interface was not proper and needed separation to reduce the risk of wicking. There was soft substrate under the stucco coating (I am a Stucco Inspector also) below the kick-outs and I recommended repair by a qualified Stucco Installer or Repair Technician to include removal of the stucco coatings and repair of the substrate. The pictures I am attaching are what I found for the re-inspection. The cut-back had not been completed at the bottom edge and I saw that the flashing was attached using fasteners that penetrated the flashing in the exact locations that water would be. The REA asked me to talk to the Licensed Roofing Contractor that installed this on speaker-phone, and I agreed. He said this is an acceptable “retro-fit” for this defect, and I said that we have different opinions. Am I wrong?
No it’s not.
You are correct. WTF… (Welcome To Florida). It’s a ChitShow everyday in my area.
And they showed up with a roofer! Send them back to your report. And no, you are not wrong. The repair is substandard.
The Stucco Repair “technician” said he can’t do flashing since he’s not a roofing contractor, so ???
Is this the sellers realtor? or your clients realtor? If it is the sellers realtor, we really should never have any contact with them whatsoever. I have never understood why realtors do this. Is this really a Licensed Roofing Contractor? I have my doubts. I might look him up if it was me. Maybe send the realtor a diagram and/or pictures of a proper repair/installation.
Sellers REA, I simply said "have your roofing contractor put that in writing with his license #, and my client can consider that in their decision-making process (long, exasperated sigh on the other end of the phone “can’t you put that in your re-inspection report?”). HAHA
Here is my pile of money, betting that it will leak.
There is a HUUGGGE “good ole boys club” down here. I’m not in it.
Was that done when the shingles were replaced? Was a permit involved?
You are right to be tough on that. Over and over, we see experienced contractors who just do it wrong. When you’re right…well…you’re right…except with your wife.
Yeah, there’s that old saying, Happy wife, miserable life.
I would like to use this example to point out how the reporting procedures used by HI’s ends up in conflict all too often, giving inspectors gray hair much too early in life. I frequently use quotes from the Inspection Standards here to support recommendations in doing your inspections. It’s up to the Inspector how they want to run their business, but engaging in conflicts with Agents, Sellers, Code Inspectors cause public opinions that result is reputation that hinders the growth of your business.
Home Inspectors have no “Authority” to enforce code, standards, or opinions. Sellers are not required to fix anything you point out (though they follow our opinions, regardless). Inspection Standards are a guide to inspections, not a law that you are empowered to enforce. Standards do not need to be followed in most cases, as long as you document why.
Kerry, you’re a Stucco Inspector but like many inspectors, you recommended repair by a qualified Stucco Installer or Repair Technician to include removal of the stucco coatings and repair of the substrate. Why is that? You are not just a HI, but are also specifically trained in stucco.
There are several reasons HI’s do this, but why are we recommending another Inspector to give an opinion on what we are the expert in? Also, you included “to include removal of the stucco coatings and repair of the substrate”. We are calling in another expert and telling them what to do about fixing it. This is an exclusion in the HI Inspection Standards. The reason being, to prevent conflict like this. There are many ways to fix things, our way is only one. You re-inspected the repair, which is not to see if it was done your way, but if the repair works. Your opinion and ours is obviously “What the hell”? We are obliged to pass it on.
The Agent asked you to talk with the roofer. Why?
You have already done your job, twice!
Unless your re-inspection determines the repair is leaking, how it was done is of no concern if it worked. You are entitled to discuss the crap job, but I recommend only between the client and the Agent upon client’s request.
What happens after the delivery of the report is up to the client only. There is no reason to voice your opinion to the contractor, selling Agent, or anyone else. This is just good business procedure. Your Insurance Agent will also thank you. If your how to do it fails, someone will be knocking on your door.
It’s good to come here and vent what drives us all crazy, but if it is more than that to you, you might consider your reporting process closer to the SOP, which is there to protect us as well as the client.
If you want to prove your right, prove it to your client and their Agent. Refusing to argue with an idiot contractor shows your superiority over the situation, versus a verbal fistfight. You will become the “go to” guy for answers.
I have been retired for many years, but still get calls from past clients and agents concerning jobs I have nothing to do with. They just need help in the direction to proceed. After all, that was my job for them in the past.
This is just an opinion of what worked for me. I did well from day one, without any marketing aside from a business card and a website. You build your own authority without not being given any. No one gave you a badge like all the agencies who have authority.
How many prior sellers from past inspections have called you to inspect their next house? 
Nope, but you can avoid the crap if you desire. 
David Andersen
Good thoughts, thank you. I performed a Home Inspection (and excluded the exterior in that report), and a Stucco/Building Envelope Inspection (with a Separately issued Report) on the same house. I have separate contracts for each Inspection, as my Stucco Inspection requires intrusive examination (probing through the coating to the substrate). It was in the stucco report that the repairs were recommended. I am extremely confident that the words I used were ok (there was no doubt intrusive repairs were necessary, I drilled through the stucco coating and my masonry bit went straight through any substrate remaining so I knew they had to explore and repair). I was just venting about the flashing and the repair guy insisting that this was okay because that’s all he was paid to do. As for the phone chat with the repair guy, I am glad to talk with tradespeople any time. I can learn a lot from others if I try. In this instance I learned that “kick-out flashing was not required” (yes, he said that). I thanked him and assured him that we all have different methods of dong things and I would do some research. No way would I call him out in front of a client-his or mine, I’m not that big of a D*^$ (I hope).