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.
Implications matter. "I don't do this." Poster - should I do that too? People come here for help and you choose to take swipes at a profession at the expense of helping people. The worst inspection I've seen was about 5 years ago. Buyer didn't trust agents and didn't trust inspectors not to cater to agents. He was awful to work with. Hired an inspector from out of market, paid $100 more than my guy charged, and got a crummy inspection to show for it. Good agents recommend good vendors. If you don't trust the agent don't hire them. Trust but verify.
Defend your statement: - I would also never use an inspector recommended by an agent (a view well supported by some of the agents' comments on this thread).
I'm not taking swipes at any profession. You mistake swipes at sloppiness and misinformation as swipes at a whole industry. Or in this case my choice in how I would use the services of an agent is somehow threatening to you or you see it as a swipe. Odd.
(a view well supported by some of the agents' comments on this thread) OK, i was referring to your post:
<<<<Obviously the description wasn't but was the inspection thorough and did he include photos? If so probably acceptable if not excellent.>>>>
You've concluded that if this report has photos it is probably acceptable or perhaps even excellent! You may have muddled the English and meant something different but I have no idea how anyone could find this report even acceptable never mind potentially 'excellent'. So what I meant was that it appears that we have completely different concepts of what it takes to be professional or what a professional and acceptable inspection report is. Therefore, i clearly would not want you referring any inspectors to me since your comments suggest that you might have very low standards for inspectors. That's the impression your comments gave.
I would advise the OP, if they choose to share any parts of the Report, redact out the name of the inspector or their company when doing so. No need to create more of a thing.
Also, you can certainly contact the Florida Home Inspector licensing board (or whatever their entity is called) and ask them about the report and if it meets the standards they laid out. I know our licensing board in NC will be happy to speak to you and request several reports form the inspector in question. In fact, the main source of administrative actions here is when a compliant is filed and maybe there’s nothing wrong with that particular thing, but they of course will look at the rest of that report and others and find things done incorrectly.
And to expand a bit, the report should mostly consist of information about the home being inspected. Photos, descriptions of things inspected etc. Some diagrams of things in a typical home are acceptable and even helpful at times as it’s often way easier to explain the way something is supposed to work and maybe why it’s wrong, by using a diagram, rather than only writing about it or sometimes even showing a picture of the defective item. It should not be what was described, as 39 pages of General Home maintenance. By seeing some of the report even, it would go a long way to understanding what’s going on.
I would advise the OP, if they choose to share any parts of the Report, redact out the name of the inspector or their company when doing so. No need to create more of a thing.
Also, you can certainly contact the Florida Home Inspector licensing board (or whatever their entity is called) and ask them about the report and if it meets the standards they laid out. I know our licensing board in NC will be happy to speak to you and request several reports form the inspector in question. In fact, the main source of administrative actions here is when a compliant is filed and maybe there’s nothing wrong with that particular thing, but they of course will look at the rest of that report and others and find things done incorrectly.
Yes, there’s a copyright watermark on the bottom, but it’s something the software puts in automatically, just below the text that states this is a confidential report prepared for <client> and as much to support the section from the inspection agreement that the report is for the client only as anything. Basically hoping to lessen legal liability should the report make its way to a third party buyer not covered by the contract, rather than worrying about who the buyer shares the report with.
I tell the client they are free to share the report. I offer to proactively send to their agent or whoever else they ask me to (some younger buyers will have parents, uncle who is a contractor, etc). However, unless the buyer gives me explicit permission, I don’t email it to anyone. I don’t participate in any of the various data mining operations out there like Alarm companies and insurance companies (who seem to be buying up various vendors and software providers in this space recently) and I keep everything confidential. The last thing I want to do is unleash the hounds of telemarketers on people, more than already happens.
I'm not taking swipes at any profession. You mistake swipes at sloppiness and misinformation as swipes at a whole industry. Or in this case my choice in how I would use the services of an agent is somehow threatening to you or you see it as a swipe. Odd.
(a view well supported by some of the agents' comments on this thread) OK, i was referring to your post:
<<<<Obviously the description wasn't but was the inspection thorough and did he include photos? If so probably acceptable if not excellent.>>>>
You've concluded that if this report has photos it is probably acceptable or perhaps even excellent! You may have muddled the English and meant something different but I have no idea how anyone could find this report even acceptable never mind potentially 'excellent'. So what I meant was that it appears that we have completely different concepts of what it takes to be professional or what a professional and acceptable inspection report is. Therefore, i clearly would not want you referring any inspectors to me since your comments suggest that you might have very low standards for inspectors. That's the impression your comments gave.
You need to stop and think about what you're reading or maybe just stop overthinking. How you equate my post with an agent stating don't use an agent recommended inspector is beyond me. You're either dense or too smart for your own good.
1-That's not an inspector I'd recommend based on the info provided.
2-I said the inspection may be acceptable if the inspection was thorough so that contingency was important. I can see how you choose to twist words to suit your needs. I should have used "but" rather than "if" however I think most people understood the gist. Let me rephrase that last sentence to help you comprehend it - The description certainly wasn't excellent but if the inspection was thorough, pictures were included, and if he explained the report to you then the inspection may have been acceptable.
3-I wasn't there so I can't say if he did a good inspection or not-hence the caveats (if this then maybe that).
4-I'm not a big believer in absolutes. I don't often use the words always or never. I do agree with you that we have very different concepts about real estate professionals.
You said "agents" supported your claims that consumers shouldn't use agent referrals for inspectors. You still haven't shown me a single inference, much less multiple inferences.
Yes, there’s a copyright watermark on the bottom, but it’s something the software puts in automatically, just below the text that states this is a confidential report prepared for <client> and as much to support the section from the inspection agreement that the report is for the client only as anything. Basically hoping to lessen legal liability should the report make its way to a third party buyer not covered by the contract, rather than worrying about who the buyer shares the report with.
I tell the client they are free to share the report. I offer to proactively send to their agent or whoever else they ask me to (some younger buyers will have parents, uncle who is a contractor, etc). However, unless the buyer gives me explicit permission, I don’t email it to anyone. I don’t participate in any of the various data mining operations out there like Alarm companies and insurance companies (who seem to be buying up various vendors and software providers in this space recently) and I keep everything confidential. The last thing I want to do is unleash the hounds of telemarketers on people, more than already happens.
Exactly.
Not unlike a land survey from a licensed surveyor.
Only the named client has any claim to quality.
For anyone else, it is "For Information Only," and commonly noted that it is not for recordation.
The specious reason an inspector will claim a copyright on the report is to try to prevent it from being shared with a bit of laughable "copyright" intimidation. So he may be able to garner more business.
The smart reason for disclaimer is to avoid litigation from subsequent non-client users.
When I give an inspection report to a second buyer, it is for sake of legitimate legally mandated disclosure, and for "Information Only," They can decide how to proceed from there, and to engage their own inspector(s)..
The inspector referred to a picture that was attached. OP says that there were no pictures. What may very well have happened, was he only got part of the report. The secretary that was getting everything together, may very well have not put the rest of the report with what he got. As he says there is at least one picture and none exist, it is a very good sign that the rest of the report was sat aside and not attached. Check on this.
Those that say do not use an inspector recommended by the agent are nuts. Who knows which inspector does the best job. The better and more complete the report, the more apt the sale will close. It is to the agents best interest to refer the buyer to the best inspector available.
With the existing faults, this house is going to be expensive to bring up to a good standard. I would not touch that home, unless I got it thousands of dollars under the market value to cover the rehab. When you dig in to solves some of those problems, you probably will find other serious problems that are hidden at this time.
FYI, what I provided is not the "summary". It is the total of the inspector's writing in the entire report. The summary is this identical text duplicated (copy/paste) at the end of the report.
I didnt read back through the thread, but did you receive pictures?
Were you at the inspection?
Lastly, how did you find this inspector? Agent recommended, friend recommended, internet search?
Since we're talking about inspectors and have some real estate agents on the thread, let me ask this question.
We rejected a house because our inspector reported that the roof needed replacement (in his opinion, it should have been replaced after the major hailstorm we had a couple of years ago, but had merely been patched in some places. He also uncovered a number of electrical problems: Ungrounded 3-conductor receptacles, receptacles with reversed polarity, unpowered receptacles. The furnace, located in the attic, was in contact with combustible material, but did not have a double-walled exhaust. And more.
The seller refused to acknowledge any of those problems, so we rejected the purchase. However, with their agent having received a copy of the report, aren't they now bound to disclose that information to any future prospective purchasers?
So that electrical stuff is common here in older homes. Ungrounded outlets are normal in old homes since they didn't have ground wires back then and aren't considered a defect out here. The other stuff is disclosable but is minor stuff.
So that electrical stuff is common here in older homes. Ungrounded outlets are normal in old homes since they didn't have ground wires back then and aren't considered a defect out here. The other stuff is disclosable but is minor stuff.
I'm very familiar with electrical work and electrical code. The inspector pulled the plates and we looked at them. There was Romex running to all of them with the ground wire connected--somewhere in the walls the ground had been lost to a number of them, conductors were disconnected. And those that were reversed polarity were just bozo no-nos. I'm also perfectly aware that furnace exhaust in contact with combustible material is also a bozo no-no. It doesn't matter whether it's simple to repair--it all added up to no confidence that whoever they had doing such work didn't do something much worse that hadn't been uncovered.
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.
