Lazy house inspector (state, builder, garage, Colorado)

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

$250 - 300? for two guys? You are joking I hope. My minimum charge is $350. For that size house, you under paid.

No I'm not joking. But I would have been happy to pay more to get a better result.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

High winds may be par for the course in your area, but still not a reason to risk your life. MY life is worth a lot more than $700. That said, if he was coming back 48 hours later to pick up radon monitor, then maybe he should have gone on the roof then - if safe to do.

Like I've said for the third time now, I would never expect him to do something he's not comfortable with. I asked him to do the roof when he went back to get the radon equipment and he said to get a roofer out to inspect it as it was beyond his scope.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

While the builder may not have been the owner, why was he there if not to answer questions and make sure everything was in working order?

I was told about the garage door, for example AFTER, 48 hours after we had all left.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

I'm a little fuzzy on the driveway posts thing. Can't picture what you are talking about. It maybe obvious to YOU that one was missing, and needed, but maybe not obvious to the inspector. Since it was bugging you, and you had noticed it before the inspection, why did you not bring it up to the builder or owner?
To be honest, I'm not sure I would pay much attention to posts at the end of a driveway.

I noticed it at a later date, after the inspection day, not before.

Imagine a gated property with two big 2x2x7ft pillars either side of the gate, covered in stucco and stone. Now imagine one of the pillars missing. There was no gate installed on either entrance, but I'm just trying to give you a visual.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

With something as important as this home purchase, and as expensive as this inspection, why on earth would you bring small children to the inspection? Making sure they have the resources they need? How about getting the builder that is there to get a damn light bulb, AND plug in the garage door opener. How about giving the inspector your undivided attention? Follow him around, have a running dialog as he's inspecting. You could have called out the cosmetic things that were bothering you. YOU didn't have time to eat? Did the inspector break for lunch?? I bet not.

My eldest has deadly food allergies to dairy and egg. I would not put the responsibility of feeding her or looking after her onto anyone but me or my wife (who was also there looking after the kids along with me). The inspector is a big boy he doesn't need me to walk around and hold his hand and feed him lunch. How I chose to look after my kids is my business.

Once again the inspector did not make me aware of the garage door during the inspection. It was in his report. It is his job to locate the builder and ask him to plug in the damn garage door opener, not mine. But it's easier to just tick a box and move on.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

I DON'T want little kids under foot. I've had little kids watch me plug my tester into outlets, then go grab something to imitate me. I now tell parents to keep their kids away from me, because I don't want them to try to imitate what I am doing. Our job is hard enough without a bunch of distractions.

I get this 100% and it's why I (as I have already said) was watching out for our kids. They never got in anyone's way, didn't cry, carry on or distract anyone.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

While it may look like we are just walking around and checking outlets and switches, we have a systematic approach to our job. I tell my clients that while it may look like I am wandering aimlessly, I really do have a method that I follow. and please do not come and ask me to go to another part of the house and "look at something". I will look at it when I get there, or go back when I'm finished.

When I open an electrical panel, all someone sees is me standing there with a flashlight looking inside the panel for 2 - 5 minutes. What they don't see, is the education and years of experience that is behind the eyes looking into the panel. I'm assessing maybe 25 - 50 things inside that panel. Yet it really doesn't look like I'm doing much. That's probably why so many people think that they too can become a home inspector - after all, how hard can it be?

I never said anything about him standing around aimless.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

Shoddy workmanship, aesthetic issues, cosmetic things are all very subjective.

My tape measure and square would debate that. And if the naked eye can pick it out...

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

When he told you that he wasn't going up on the roof because of the wind, did you ask him IF he was going to come back another time? or how it was going to get inspected?

He never told me he wasn't going up on the roof. I realized that night that I didn't see him on the roof and it wasn't until I called him about it and asked him directly if he walked the roof that he admitted he didn't.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

Sounds like maybe the inspector wasn't so lazy. Maybe the client wasn't as diligent as they could be, or take the inspection process as seriously as they should have.

I will be the first to admit the sellers representative (i.e. the builder) was doing a pathetic job. But that does not get the inspector off the hook. I am paying him, not the builder.

[Rakin]

Spiderman... you've explained it about as well as can possibly be explained. OP needs to do a better job next time shopping around for an inspector and make his expectations known before the guy accepts the job.

I suspect he'll be looking for a long time.

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

"So you call plugging in a garage door opener and chaining a light bulb (to determine if its a wiring problem) repairing potential problems?

Actually the ASHI Standards of Practice are fairly clear:
13.2 General exclusions
13.2.B Inspectors are NOT required to determine:
4. The causes of any condition or deficiency.

13.2 D Inspectors are NOT required to operate:
1. any system or component which is shut down or otherwise inoperable.
2. any system or component which does not respond to normal operating controls

13.2.F Inspectors are NOT required to inspect:
2. systems or components which are not installed
3. decorative items
4. systems or components located in areas that are not entered in accordance with these Standards of Practice.

13.2.G Inspectors are NOT required to:
1. Perform any procedure or operation which will, in the opinion of the inspector, likely be dangerous to the inspector or other persons or damage the property or its systems or components.

"Not required" is not the same that as forbidden. You made out that because of liability or safety issues they were not allowed to plug something in or move a chair - at least that's what I took from your argument. I don't see anything in there that say's they can't plug something in - just that they don't have too. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

In the case of the garage door opener. If I was to inspect a new home and it wasn't plugged in, I wouldn't plug it in unless the owner/builder gave me the OK, or did it themselves. There are several things that can go wrong with a garage door opener, and pretty much all but one is bad.

If the builder (and the guy paying you to determine what is wrong with the house) was on the property would you go to him/me to plug it in or would you just tick the 'I couldn't be bother box'? I mean really I shouldn't have to be even asking this question.

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

While I have had my share of light bulbs burst when screwing one in, I would probably go ahead and try one if it was available, and easy to get to.

Think about it... there was a whole house full of working light bulbs that were accessible.

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by Rakin

Spiderman... you've explained it about as well as can possibly be explained. OP needs to do a better job next time shopping around for an inspector and make his expectations known before the guy accepts the job.

I suspect he'll be looking for a long time.

I don't have to look at all - like I said I've used the same guy for the last three inspections I've had and I've never had a complaint. I wanted to support local business and not just bring in my guys from Denver. My mistake...

[escanlan]

Originally Posted by Colorado^

IIRC the guy I've used in the past charged me $250-$350 depending on the house. That was for TWO guys for about 4 hours.

I have to say that I would find it very hard to trust the work of someone who is working almost for free. That is each one of those Inspectors is making ($350/2)/4 = $43.75 / Hour and that does not include any travel time or report writing time! Inspectors have many expenses and that $43.75 does not even include the deductions for taxes they must pay.

Originally Posted by Colorado^

I did not receive the report for several days.

That is inexcusable but later you mentioned he was a part time Inspector and that can be expected with them.

Originally Posted by Colorado^

The ice dams were in the corners of the dormas covering about 1% of the roof and not in an area you would need to walk on. He didn't walk the roof because of the high winds. High winds in winter are par for the course in this neck of the woods. However I would never ask anyone to do anything they didn't feel comfortable with. But please don't charge me for something you really didn't do.

No he did not and we discussed it at length over the phone when I realized I never saw him on the roof.

When there is ice on the roof, regardless of where it is at, there is always the potential that the roof has other areas that are slick. I too would not risk the personal injury to find out if there is ice I can't see clearly or not. I have walked on roofs in light rains but they were in a Texas Summer and the roof was very low sloped. Still not a good thing but I was comfortable enough with it. I did mention before though that I do try to determine before I quote the client a price if I can or can't walk a roof. If I can't I do on my invoice show the normal full price and a reduction along with a statement in my contract why the reduction and the client agrees. Most of mine is from two story roofs requiring 24'+ ladders which are not safe for one person around some of our homes here.

In your situation with your weather and the known issues that should have been broached with you, by the Inspector, during the initial discussions and covered in his contract. It is a typical ploy we do see even here in Texas. The Inspector says nothing about it, books the inspection, then goes to the site knowing they will use a safety departure clause not to climb a roof, walk an attic, etc.

Originally Posted by Colorado^

He had to come back after 48 hours to collect his radon detector. I do not expect anyone to work for free, just like I don't expect to pay someone for work that wasn't done.

That was an unknown detail until now. Yes he should possibly have at least reviewed the roof and decided again if he could or could not climb it. But again you had mentioned that he is a part time Inspector and picking up the radon canister might have been his regular job's lunch hour. That doesn't excuse him but displays why people really should stay away from part time Inspectors!

Originally Posted by Colorado^

It gets complicated, but the builder is not the owner - it's investor owned and there has been more than one builder involved. I found out about the garage two days after we were all at the inspection.

Again a result of using a part time Inspector is reports can be delayed as they tend to their full time job. It does not excuse the Inspector for getting a report to you but another example of why part time Inspectors should be avoided!

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Their purpose is visual. There were no specifications, but it's pretty obvious that both entrances should look the same.

We already discussed the aesthetic Vs. Functional reporting. I am not trying to beat up on you but that is something you should have brought to the builder's attention regardless if it was on the report or not. IMO part of the issue was that you were expecting this Inspector to list aesthetic conditions like your previous one did. I do have to say though if your previous Inspector was doing a punchlist for you as well as inspecting, and doing it all in basically 4 hours at that cheap rate I would seriously have to question the value of his service?

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Shoddy workmanship is something I expect to be reported. It affects the value of the home and will cost $$ to fix.

Again it appears that your past Inspector left you with an impression that is not the norm in this industry. If the aesthetics are causing a problem then yes they are reported. I generally would report those major screw-ups for the reason you stated but not all Inspectors will. I do that though as a courtesy only and the client does not contract for it unless they pay for the separate service to do it. The Inspector needs to pay attention to the defects which I don't consider aesthetics a defect in the realm of reporting normally. If an Inspector is spending a lot of time documenting and reporting aesthetics then the value of their actual services must be questioned!

Originally Posted by Colorado^

When I attend the inspections, I'm managing the people I hire - making sure they show up, making sure they get payed, making sure they have the resources they need, all while trying to make sure my little kids don't fall down the stairs or get in the way etc. I didn't even have time to feed myself...

Bravo! Nothing wrong with getting involved but you do need to at least set some time aside to perform the punchlist inspection whether it is that day or another. I like it when the client gets involved and takes charge of the other Inspectors (pool, termite, etc.) and runs the show. Less I have to deal with and gives me time to inspect.

Originally Posted by Colorado^

It's just as aesthetic issue, but none the less a costly one to fix properly.

Covered previously.

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Well I was just expecting the same level of detail that I have received in the past, maybe more as he was charging double. To be fair this house is bigger so I would expect to pay more.

Again not trying to beat you up but that was something that should have been communicated to the Inspector when discussing his services. Not all Inspectors are equal with some doing more and many others doing less.

By the way, what is "IIRC"? I keep seeing that in posts and maybe I'm in the wrong generation to understand all the abbreviations?

[Colorado^]

ESCANLAN, thanks for your post. I will conceded that my expectations (re aesthetics) were unrealistic based on all this feedback. Seems that my other inspector was above and beyond and I should not hold all inspections to this standard.

IIRC means if I remember correctly. Basically, it's an out if you provide miss information .

[Barking Spider]

Of course not required is not forbidden. I don't think there is any SOP for home inspectors that say something is forbidden. I imagine that liability is the reason behind some of these SOP. I don't know, I didn't write them.

There is no reason why it should have taken him several days to get the report to you. I guess thats what happens when they are part timers.

To answer your specific questions, on what I would have done...
1. I probably would not have plugged in the garage opener without first checking with the builder/owner. If they gave me the go-ahead, I would have plugged it in. Without that permission, I probably wouldn't have.
2. Light bulbs? I carry extras in my truck. Unless there was something else going on that made me think there might be a problem, I would have tried a bulb in the fixture.
3. Roof? With ice, I would not have gone up there. I won't walk on roofs that are really steep either, ice or no ice. Its a safety thing. However, if I came back two days later, and the roof was safe to walk, I would have gone on it then.

I don't like loose ends on my reports. I don't like to leave an inspection without checking everything. However, there are times when we all have to (the water heater thing for me recently). It sucks, but its just what happens sometimes.

Home inspectors are thrown under the bus a lot. Many times it is for reasons that have nothing to do with the competence of the inspector, but more with unrealistic expectations from the clients. Since I am a professional home inspector (for 23 years) I take offense when people rant for no reason. I'm sorry I sounded harsh at times.

Your circumstance is kind of a combination (IMHO) of unrealistic expectations, AND having an inspector that was not professional and/or diligent. He did a crappy job (technical term) of inspecting.

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

Your circumstance is kind of a combination (IMHO) of unrealistic expectations, AND having an inspector that was not professional and/or diligent. He did a crappy job (technical term) of inspecting.

Fair enough, and thanks for your input

[piyf]

700 to inspect a 5k sqft home. Sounds like he didn't charge enough. What happens if the inspector tries to troubleshoot and causes more damage? Exactly, he inspects only and reports it.

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by danieloneil01

700 to inspect a 5k sqft home. Sounds like he didn't charge enough. What happens if the inspector tries to troubleshoot and causes more damage? Exactly, he inspects only and reports it.

You make it sound like there are only two options. The third option is to go find the builder (or make a phone call) and ask if there is any reason the garage door opener is unplugged and take it from there.