Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most banks if your dealing with one has a list of home inspectors and the building department can offer names . Septic !! See who's in the area and read up on problems or reviews . Good idea to have it pumped and start adding a red-x monthly as many don't pay attention to tank or drain field health . Ask with the building department about who to call too !!
If you have no idea how things work, or are all thumbs with home repair, then you probably need a home inspector, but this is my personal experience with home inspections, look at post 28 in the linked thread and the following two posts:
If you have no idea how things work, or are all thumbs with home repair, then you probably need a home inspector, but this is my personal experience with home inspections, look at post 28 in the linked thread and the following two posts:
Interesting and I did read the whole thread including the two posts you mentioned. Yes there are problem Inspectors out there but there are many good ones as well. Let's look at the posts you mentioned.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by getatag
I disagree with the good home inspection being worth his/her fee. I used a very respected home inspector in the High Country for a fee of $575.00. Two showed up to do the inspection. They stayed 1/2 day. One did most of the inspecting, the other entered the data in the computer for later printout. They were very knowledgeable and did as complete a job as they were allowed to do by company policy.
Here are a few things they listed on the report:
They approved the decking on the house, both front and rear. I discovered there was no flashing installed between the deck boards and the siding/foundation along the rear of the house. (the front deck was flashed properly)
There was one electrical flip switch that wasn't wired to anything. (Someone had either never connected the wires or disconnected the wires, therefore making it a switch to nowhere. I replaced the faulty rocker type switch, connected the capped wires and the florescent light in the pantry worked again like magic.)
They recorded the exhaust fan over the kitchen sink as broken. (upon a two minute examination I discovered there was no fan motor in the kitchen exhaust fan over the stove. Evidently never installed by the electrician)
They recorded two overhead lights as non operable due to wiring or "other" electrical issues. They recommended a licensed electrician be hired to diagnose the problem. (The bulbs were blown out, a simple replacement solved the problem.)
One outside faucet didn't work, probably caused by inoperable valve. (It was on the shady side of the house and the bib was frozen, 20 degree outside temperature.)
Electric garage door inoperable. (It was unplugged at the ceiling behind the motor)
Deadbolt latch for French doors broken and unable to lock semi-stationary door in place. (They are Andersen French doors, you must lift the latch while simultaneously turning the deadbolt for them to latch, easy fix if you just study it for a moment, not broken)
There were other things, but the point being in three hours the day before the inspection a friend and I found all these things in our own inspection. If a prospective home owner has a rudimentary knowledge of how things work and a reasonable interest in what construction and building codes are in their area, they can perform just as reliable a home inspection on their own and save considerable amounts of money.
I'll never pay for another home inspection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuilterChick
As I recall, home inspectors cannot be held responsible for errors in their reporting. (Read their contract.) Additionally, no one person can have specific expertise in all the areas of construction -- past or present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awraynor
In our current house the inspector missed a few items too. What a concept, doing a job with no liability.
Essentially there appear to be several factors present with your post and follow on posts.
It appears that you hired an Inspector(s) that provide on site reports as a second was there to enter data "for later printout". Both of these conditions (two Inspectors with one entering data and on site reports) are an invitation to the following.
Minimized inspections with errors in communication between the two Inspectors.
Had both Inspectors physically been inspecting, then both enter the own data, then the final report compiled you could have had two sets of eyes actually finding issues, prevention of communications errors between the two, and even possibly a broader set of actions taken to make the inspection more in depth.
For many Inspectors "Time is money" and the faster they can get out of that house, regardless of how well the inspection and report are performed, the faster they can get to the next inspection and make more money.
From your issue description I also suspect that you hired Inspector(s) that used the "Representative Sample" method of inspecting. That means when there are multiples of the same item in a room they only test a "Representative Sample" of the items and then judge all based on their sample. Unfortunately some Standards of Practice (SOP defining their intended inspection activities) allow that whether it is a State licensing mandated SOP or one by any Inspector Association they belong to. This "Representative Sample" may also be spelled out in their contract but is typically not defined and can be confusing. Representative sampling is another "Time is money" technique by Inspectors that cause issues being missed as well as other possible significant problems if they pass on an item that could have lead to indications of worse problems.
You appear to unrealistically expect an Inspector to identify the cause for all issues found. Many if not most times that does require taking actions that may be destructive in nature or may cause damage in the process. Even something as simple as an inoperative light bulb in a multi-bulb fixture can be damaged. I know since I've done it. Long ago I stopped carrying replacement bulbs to do this after damaging one bulb that broke while trying to remove it so I can test it. The Inspector should just report, stay away from conjecture for the cause, and do not attempt actions that may damage the home.
You appear to unreasonable expect the Inspectors should attempt to place a system/etc. in full working order in an attempt to test it (garage door opener unplugged issue above as an example). The Inspector has no idea why that opener was unplugged, a breaker was turned off, a valve (water or gas) was turned off, etc., to deactivate that item. As a result the Inspector should NEVER activate that system and instead report it as such and advise to have the homeowner display its activation/operation to ensure it is properly functioning. There might have been a very good reason why the homeowner deactivated that item and activating it may well cause damage that could have been avoided.
You seem to believe that if a buyer has a rudimentary knowledge of homes and building codes that they can perform their own inspection. I work with extremely smart and detailed clients who I have no doubt they can, and sometimes have, already found what I found. However your thought line is flawed for the following reasons.
Inspecting is not just "looking" at something to find an issue. Homes are complex and what appears to be a simple thing on one side of the home may be coupled with another simple thing on the other side to indicate a major problem. When inspecting the Inspector MUST think about what they are seeing, experiencing, measuring, etc., to place it in the bigger picture if a possible bigger picture exists.
I know the building codes, and a whole lot more, but they can all be very confusing if you do not understand how they are created, written, and applied. It is common that one section may negate a requirement in another section all depending on the materials and techniques used.
You talk about doing your own 3 hour inspection with a buddy and catching some of what the Inspector already caught. However in your description you allude to the Inspector having missed many things as well. A good Inspector with a good protocol covers a heck of a lot more in those same 3 hours than what you most likely did. How much did you miss that the Inspector also missed that a good Inspector would not miss?
I keep hearing about how Inspectors are not liable for anything they miss or they limit their liability in their contracts. FACT you can not limit your liability or escape it under gross negligence no matter what the profession is! An Inspector can limit their liability when the client agrees to specific conditions/actions such as "Representative Sampling", a really hosed SOP that is vague and confusing, etc. That comes back to knowing what is in your contract.
So the take away from this and for all consumers out there is the following.
Number one is to give yourself enough time to truly vet your Inspector. Before you make an offer on a home you should already have at least 3 Inspectors lined up you want to use. Three in case one or two are not available when you need them. Don't wait until the last minute to hire your Inspector as you will most likely run into issues with them in a desperation selection.
Do not wait deep into your due diligence period to get the Inspector in to inspect. You lose time if you do need to call in other specialists for significant issues found or estimates for work. BTW that's another reason to line up the 3 Inspectors before hand.
Read and understand your contract with the Inspector before you sign it. As a matter of fact when you vet the Inspector ask for a sample of the contract that will be used so you have time to do it and compare with other Inspectors. If you do not understand the contract wording then ask questions about it (in writing, email or other).
Stay away from the Inspectors that place all the liability limiting language in their contracts. That coupled with other contract terms (see above) can allow the Inspector to walk away from a crappy inspection. Good Inspectors don't need to try limiting their liability and instead limit it by doing the best job possible.
Stay away from the on site reporting Inspectors. If you called them in soon enough then a 24 hour wait period for a report is possible and actually more beneficial to you! That gives you 24 hours to decompress from the event and collect your thoughts and decompress so you can look at the report objectively.
If you have specific expectations of an Inspector clear the air by asking about them before you sign the contract. Any reasonable Inspector is willing to discuss your concerns with you.
Always obtain a sample report to help determine what kind of Inspector you have. You can use them to compare with others as well. The report tells a lot about the Inspector if you take the time to read it.
Interesting and I did read the whole thread including the two posts you mentioned. Yes there are problem Inspectors out there but there are many good ones as well. Let's look at the posts you mentioned.
Essentially there appear to be several factors present with your post and follow on posts.
It appears that you hired an Inspector(s) that provide on site reports as a second was there to enter data "for later printout". Both of these conditions (two Inspectors with one entering data and on site reports) are an invitation to the following.
Minimized inspections with errors in communication between the two Inspectors.
Had both Inspectors physically been inspecting, then both enter the own data, then the final report compiled you could have had two sets of eyes actually finding issues, prevention of communications errors between the two, and even possibly a broader set of actions taken to make the inspection more in depth.
For many Inspectors "Time is money" and the faster they can get out of that house, regardless of how well the inspection and report are performed, the faster they can get to the next inspection and make more money.
From your issue description I also suspect that you hired Inspector(s) that used the "Representative Sample" method of inspecting. That means when there are multiples of the same item in a room they only test a "Representative Sample" of the items and then judge all based on their sample. Unfortunately some Standards of Practice (SOP defining their intended inspection activities) allow that whether it is a State licensing mandated SOP or one by any Inspector Association they belong to. This "Representative Sample" may also be spelled out in their contract but is typically not defined and can be confusing. Representative sampling is another "Time is money" technique by Inspectors that cause issues being missed as well as other possible significant problems if they pass on an item that could have lead to indications of worse problems.
You appear to unrealistically expect an Inspector to identify the cause for all issues found. Many if not most times that does require taking actions that may be destructive in nature or may cause damage in the process. Even something as simple as an inoperative light bulb in a multi-bulb fixture can be damaged. I know since I've done it. Long ago I stopped carrying replacement bulbs to do this after damaging one bulb that broke while trying to remove it so I can test it. The Inspector should just report, stay away from conjecture for the cause, and do not attempt actions that may damage the home.
You appear to unreasonable expect the Inspectors should attempt to place a system/etc. in full working order in an attempt to test it (garage door opener unplugged issue above as an example). The Inspector has no idea why that opener was unplugged, a breaker was turned off, a valve (water or gas) was turned off, etc., to deactivate that item. As a result the Inspector should NEVER activate that system and instead report it as such and advise to have the homeowner display its activation/operation to ensure it is properly functioning. There might have been a very good reason why the homeowner deactivated that item and activating it may well cause damage that could have been avoided.
You seem to believe that if a buyer has a rudimentary knowledge of homes and building codes that they can perform their own inspection. I work with extremely smart and detailed clients who I have no doubt they can, and sometimes have, already found what I found. However your thought line is flawed for the following reasons.
Inspecting is not just "looking" at something to find an issue. Homes are complex and what appears to be a simple thing on one side of the home may be coupled with another simple thing on the other side to indicate a major problem. When inspecting the Inspector MUST think about what they are seeing, experiencing, measuring, etc., to place it in the bigger picture if a possible bigger picture exists.
I know the building codes, and a whole lot more, but they can all be very confusing if you do not understand how they are created, written, and applied. It is common that one section may negate a requirement in another section all depending on the materials and techniques used.
You talk about doing your own 3 hour inspection with a buddy and catching some of what the Inspector already caught. However in your description you allude to the Inspector having missed many things as well. A good Inspector with a good protocol covers a heck of a lot more in those same 3 hours than what you most likely did. How much did you miss that the Inspector also missed that a good Inspector would not miss?
I keep hearing about how Inspectors are not liable for anything they miss or they limit their liability in their contracts. FACT you can not limit your liability or escape it under gross negligence no matter what the profession is! An Inspector can limit their liability when the client agrees to specific conditions/actions such as "Representative Sampling", a really hosed SOP that is vague and confusing, etc. That comes back to knowing what is in your contract.
So the take away from this and for all consumers out there is the following.
Number one is to give yourself enough time to truly vet your Inspector. Before you make an offer on a home you should already have at least 3 Inspectors lined up you want to use. Three in case one or two are not available when you need them. Don't wait until the last minute to hire your Inspector as you will most likely run into issues with them in a desperation selection.
Do not wait deep into your due diligence period to get the Inspector in to inspect. You lose time if you do need to call in other specialists for significant issues found or estimates for work. BTW that's another reason to line up the 3 Inspectors before hand.
Read and understand your contract with the Inspector before you sign it. As a matter of fact when you vet the Inspector ask for a sample of the contract that will be used so you have time to do it and compare with other Inspectors. If you do not understand the contract wording then ask questions about it (in writing, email or other).
Stay away from the Inspectors that place all the liability limiting language in their contracts. That coupled with other contract terms (see above) can allow the Inspector to walk away from a crappy inspection. Good Inspectors don't need to try limiting their liability and instead limit it by doing the best job possible.
Stay away from the on site reporting Inspectors. If you called them in soon enough then a 24 hour wait period for a report is possible and actually more beneficial to you! That gives you 24 hours to decompress from the event and collect your thoughts and decompress so you can look at the report objectively.
If you have specific expectations of an Inspector clear the air by asking about them before you sign the contract. Any reasonable Inspector is willing to discuss your concerns with you.
Always obtain a sample report to help determine what kind of Inspector you have. You can use them to compare with others as well. The report tells a lot about the Inspector if you take the time to read it.
You make a lot of sense about the process and the inspectors.
I still feel that almost 600 dollars for a couple of certified inspectors to tell me a light doesn't work, or
a fan doesn't work (I discovered the motor was missing) is a waste of good money!
And yes, one of the bulbs broke when I pulled it out... no big deal, just make sure the power is off and extract the damaged base and replace it with a new bulb.
I won't take your post point by point because I think you did a great job of that in your response.
No offense to your line of work, but someone with an average affinity for trouble shooting and fixing things can find 99.9%, if not 100%, of what a certified inspector would find.
If you are going through the trouble of vetting several inspection teams, use that time wisely to check codes in the county and examine it yourself.
Self inspecting a home is not for everyone, but, not being a trained, licensed inspector, didn't preclude me from a more in-depth discovery than the licensed pair. I have talked to other homeowners who came to the same conclusion with their home inspections.
You know what the always say, "If you want it done right, do it yourself!"
You make a lot of sense about the process and the inspectors.
I still feel that almost 600 dollars for a couple of certified inspectors to tell me a light doesn't work, or
a fan doesn't work (I discovered the motor was missing) is a waste of good money!
And yes, one of the bulbs broke when I pulled it out... no big deal, just make sure the power is off and extract the damaged base and replace it with a new bulb.
I won't take your post point by point because I think you did a great job of that in your response.
No offense to your line of work, but someone with an average affinity for trouble shooting and fixing things can find 99.9%, if not 100%, of what a certified inspector would find.
If you are going through the trouble of vetting several inspection teams, use that time wisely to check codes in the county and examine it yourself.
Self inspecting a home is not for everyone, but, not being a trained, licensed inspector, didn't preclude me from a more in-depth discovery than the licensed pair. I have talked to other homeowners who came to the same conclusion with their home inspections.
You know what the always say, "If you want it done right, do it yourself!"
Can you spot the beginnings of foundation issues, the signs of drainage issues undermining structural integrity, the beginnings of failing retaining walls, improper flashing that could lead to thousands of dollars in water damage, improper HVAC or water heater installation/ventilation, things that aren't up to code, code issues that are fire hazards, etc. that you'll have to put money to repairing when you sell and the buyer has a knowledgeable inspector that spots those things? If you can spot all of those things do you know what the market costs are to mitigate the issues above your handyman skill set?
$600 is cheap insurance against buying a money pit and many times gives you thousands of dollars in purchase price reduction to repair the issues they find. The cliche penny wise and dollar foolish comes to mind.
Last edited by Clever nickname here; 09-26-2019 at 10:38 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
