Has the Importance of a House Inspection Become Overblown? (negotiating, sale, accepting)

[escanlan]

Originally Posted by Chas863

Well, I've been trying to explain to you and Mike (and others) for several pages now about the difference between "standards of practice" compliance and "building code" compliance and apparently you two are included in the group that doesn't know the difference between the two.

Mike even went so far as to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about. You say that you didn't understand my "word salad" of a few pages back. So I think that any further attempts to explain to you and Mike what the difference is would simply fall on deaf ears.

I hate to use an old expression here because it isn't very polite, but it may be very applicable, so I'll use it anyway. "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

You might consider doing some research on this matter to become better informed because my attempts to explain it through examples have sailed right over your head.

Actually no you have not. Instead you have repeatedly until your 10:45 A.M. post today used the word "standard" and not "standards of practice". "Building code compliance", "Standards compliance", and "Standards of Practice" compliance are three completely different aspects that are at times intertwined. I have already explained "Standards" and "Building Codes" in a previous post. Since you appear to be talking about a home in Tennessee we will now discuss "Standards of Practice" as set forth for Home Inspectors in that State "RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INSURANCE DIVISION OF REGULATORY BOARDS CHAPTER 0780-05-12 HOME INSPECTORS"


If you read the Standards of Practice (SOP) at the link above you will easily see that the SOP starting on page 9 makes absolutely no reference to "Building Codes" or any other "Standard". The SOP basically tells the Inspector what they must inspect and how they must annotate it in their reports. Your home does not have to "comply" with the "Standards of Practice" but instead the Inspector must "comply" with the SOP. It appears to be left up to the Inspector what "Standards" they use to determine if an issue exists. Some may well use the Building Codes as a guidance for a safe and habitable home, others may use actual industry "Standards" for an item they are inspecting, some may use other baselines for their decisions, and some may use many or all of these.


If you use the proper words and phrases then the other members here might understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately your mix and match of terms has caused the misinterpretations and your misconceptions of others.

[escanlan]

Originally Posted by Chas863

Thank you to everyone! I do appreciate all the comments even though I disagree with most of them.

To address my own question, yes, I think that the inspection process has changed considerably from its original intent. The original intent, IMO, was that the uninformed buyer wouldn't get stuck with buying some house with an unknown problem that might be very costly to fix.

It has now become a routine ritual whereby the buyer has 2 or 3 weeks after the contract is signed in order to dig up as many things as possible about the house that aren't perfect and then use these findings to renegotiate the deal. The inspector is the accomplice who furnishes the "ammunition" for the buyer to negotiate with, and he does it under the guise of something not complying with a "standard" even though this "standard" in some (perhaps many) cases is not included in building code compliance or other regulatory compliance issues.

I know this for a fact because I'm reading it from an inspection report that I received on a house I bought several years ago. Many people don't understand the difference between "building code" compliance and "standard" compliance. Building code compliance has the weight of the law backing it up. A "standard" is the consensus opinion of a group of professionals on how they recommend something should be done. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee... and maybe a new air conditioner, a new dishwasher, new windows, and maybe other things too if you're able to browbeat a desperate seller enough to get them. I'm not one of those desperate sellers.

Again you have misunderstood and mischaracterized "standard" and "Standard of Practice".



You have also misunderstood "Building code compliance" having the weight of the law backing it up. That is only true under the following circumstances.

1. You must have a designated Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that mandates building codes will be used. That can be local city, County, or even the State. The AHJ function is typically assigned to the Building Inspections Department but can be others such as Fire Marshall in rural areas as well as others.
2. The AHJ must require that a specific building code version be used and for what purpose such as a complete new build or repairs/remodels.
3. The AHJ must have an inspection or other method to ensure the building codes are being followed.
4. The AHJ must be willing to inspect and enforce those codes.

Even then you may not be protected by any specific building code requirement laws once the new home has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or the building permit for the repair/renovation has been finaled (completion approval). At that point the AHJ has washed their hands of the project and if you closely read both the Building Codes and the local AHJ laws they are typically immune to prosecution under the law for their failure to perform. At that point the only law you have are any consumer laws that may be in effect that can cover your poor build/repair/renovation project. I would fully expect that in your State of Tennessee, like most all other States, that means contract law only since most have no consumer protection laws for construction or repair/remodel.


I had to read your posts multiple times to try understanding what you are complaining about. Best I can tell you have had an inspection on your home where the Inspector has called out a plethoria of issues and now you are angry about it. Another poster has already invited you to post the report or portions of it to discuss your concerns. That sounds like a real good suggestion.

[Chas863]

Originally Posted by escanlan

Again you have misunderstood and mischaracterized "standard" and "Standard of Practice".



You have also misunderstood "Building code compliance" having the weight of the law backing it up. That is only true under the following circumstances.

1. You must have a designated Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that mandates building codes will be used. That can be local city, County, or even the State. The AHJ function is typically assigned to the Building Inspections Department but can be others such as Fire Marshall in rural areas as well as others.
2. The AHJ must require that a specific building code version be used and for what purpose such as a complete new build or repairs/remodels.
3. The AHJ must have an inspection or other method to ensure the building codes are being followed.
4. The AHJ must be willing to inspect and enforce those codes.

Even then you may not be protected by any specific building code requirement laws once the new home has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or the building permit for the repair/renovation has been finaled (completion approval). At that point the AHJ has washed their hands of the project and if you closely read both the Building Codes and the local AHJ laws they are typically immune to prosecution under the law for their failure to perform. At that point the only law you have are any consumer laws that may be in effect that can cover your poor build/repair/renovation project. I would fully expect that in your State of Tennessee, like most all other States, that means contract law only since most have no consumer protection laws for construction or repair/remodel.


I had to read your posts multiple times to try understanding what you are complaining about. Best I can tell you have had an inspection on your home where the Inspector has called out a plethoria of issues and now you are angry about it. Another poster has already invited you to post the report or portions of it to discuss your concerns. That sounds like a real good suggestion.

Good post! It appears that you are the first person to post in this thread who has actually understood the difference between "standards of practice" and "building code compliance" and how they (may) apply to the house inspection report.

I don't misunderstand the difference between "standard" and "standards of practice". I was simply using a shortened term to refer to the "standards of practice". It would have made no difference to 99% of the people who have commented here anyway because I'm pretty sure (based on their comments) they don't understand that there is such a thing as a "standards of practice" or have a clue what it means.

As for the term "building code compliance", I think it goes without saying that if the property is not under a jurisdiction that has these requirements in effect, then the requirements don't apply.

My complaint is not so much about an inspection report that I have. It's with the way that inspection reports in general are now used to renegotiate contracts (often to the unfair detriment to sellers) when often the "deficiency" listed in the report makes little or no difference in the structural integrity or quality of the house. My attempts so far to explain this by simple examples seem to have gone over the head of most people here, and I have no desire to dissect my own inspection report on this forum.

[Chas863]

I suppose that you could probably summarize my feelings and thoughts on this matter by saying that in many cases, the inspection report unfairly tarnishes the reputation of a house by listing a whole bunch of things which make a distinction without a (meaningful) difference.

I'm not blaming the inspectors. In most cases, they're simply calling "balls and strikes". In other words, a certain feature either meets/conforms with the "rules" they have to go by or it doesn't. They have no leeway of applying their judgement.

Yes, I'm aware that the seller can simply refuse to do any "repairs" that they deem trivial, but the buyer (in many cases) doesn't know "trivial" from "important". They think (or pretend) that everything is earth shattering. And if the deal falls through and the house is put back on the market, it tarnishes the reputation, and therefore the value, of the house while the buyer skips merrily along to another house with no blemishes on him/her whatsoever. Another poster (or two) said essentially the same thing as I've just said several pages back, so I want to give him/them credit for doing so.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Chas863

I suppose that you could probably summarize my feelings and thoughts on this matter by saying that in many cases, the inspection report unfairly tarnishes the reputation of a house by listing a whole bunch of things which make a distinction without a (meaningful) difference.

I'm not blaming the inspectors. In most cases, they're simply calling "balls and strikes". In other words, a certain feature either meets/conforms with the "rules" they have to go by or it doesn't. They have no leeway of applying their judgement.

Yes, I'm aware that the seller can simply refuse to do any "repairs" that they deem trivial, but the buyer (in many cases) doesn't know "trivial" from "important". They think (or pretend) that everything is earth shattering. And if the deal falls through and the house is put back on the market, it tarnishes the reputation, and therefore the value, of the house while the buyer skips merrily along to another house with no blemishes on him/her whatsoever. Another poster (or two) said essentially the same thing as I've just said several pages back, so I want to give him/them credit for doing so.

The Inspector I use calls out the important from the cosmetic. There are the tricky ones. I will have my client request repair for a non operative AC unit for example. The problem here is that there is a range of possible causes from $100 to $7,500 range and I don't want my client to take the gamble.

Past that we try and negotiate a dollar settlement. I prefer appropriate fixes rather than the cheapest one.

And again the "standard" is virtually always does it work or not. There are very few that involve anything more technical than that.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by escanlan

I had to read your posts multiple times to try understanding what you are complaining about.

You have more patience and charity than I!

Originally Posted by Chas863

I don't misunderstand the difference between "standard" and "standards of practice".

Chas. No. One. Here. Does.

Stop insulting everyone else who has tried to communicate with you and consider that perhaps you've not perfected making your point yet. And that that isn't our fault. OKAY?

Originally Posted by Chas863

I suppose that you could probably summarize my feelings and thoughts on this matter by saying that in many cases, the inspection report unfairly tarnishes the reputation of a house by listing a whole bunch of things which make a distinction without a (meaningful) difference.

I'm not blaming the inspectors. In most cases, they're simply calling "balls and strikes". In other words, a certain feature either meets/conforms with the "rules" they have to go by or it doesn't. They have no leeway of applying their judgement.

Yes, I'm aware that the seller can simply refuse to do any "repairs" that they deem trivial, but the buyer (in many cases) doesn't know "trivial" from "important". They think (or pretend) that everything is earth shattering. And if the deal falls through and the house is put back on the market, it tarnishes the reputation, and therefore the value, of the house while the buyer skips merrily along to another house with no blemishes on him/her whatsoever. Another poster (or two) said essentially the same thing as I've just said several pages back, so I want to give him/them credit for doing so.

Good inspection reports very much DO make distinctions between important issues, and those which are less pressing or cosmetic. And in addition to the written report, our inspector talks at length in person with the client to help them understand which things are important and which things aren't. And then in turn, we agents usually spend significant time with the client going over the report also, helping the client understand and prioritize the items in the report and which things, IF ANY, they should ask the seller to fix or credit for.

There are exceptions to every rule, but buyers are reasonable people at least as often as sellers are. And people don't usually go around turning small cosmetic flaws which are present in every home, into dealbreakers.

Chas I think you should post some excerpts or real examples from your report. Share whatever it is that's got you so peeved about your old report. You never know, we might actually agree with you on the substance, if not on the cure. I'm not sure what you might propose for a cure.

[Chas863]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

And again the "standard" is virtually always does it work or not. There are very few that involve anything more technical than that.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. While that "standard" may apply to appliances or mechanical things, there are many more things that it doesn't apply to.

*If a stairway has a 9 1/2" tread instead of the "standard" 10" minimum tread, it will likely still work just fine, but that won't keep it from being written up as a deficiency.

*If a deck has a 35" tall railing instead of the minimum 36" "standard" it will likely work just fine, but that won't keep it from being written up as a deficiency.

*If an interior closet door closes but doesn't "latch" because the striker plate needs to be adjusted by 1/4", it will still close just fine, but that doesn't keep it from being written up as a deficiency.

*If an attic has plenty of insulation but has one spot that for some reason the insulation is missing or very thin, it will likely work just fine, but that doesn't keep it from getting written up as a deficiency.

*If the set of classy brick steps leading from the garage into the house has one step that is a slightly different height than the others, it will likely work just fine, but that doesn't keep it from getting written up as a deficiency.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. Some of the examples I listed above could be fixed very easily, but some would require considerable "rebuilding" to make fit the "standard". And there are many more things that would be MUCH harder to correct or rebuild that could be written up as deficiencies even though they've been that way since the house was built with zero indication of any problem whatsoever and little likelihood of any future problem... yet they're still listed as a "deficiency".

This inspection game is a messed up game as far as I'm concerned because in many instances it replaces common sense and logic with a "yes or no" question.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by Chas863

Sorry, but I disagree with that. While that "standard" may apply to appliances or mechanical things, there are many more things that it doesn't apply to.

*If a stairway has a 9 1/2" tread instead of the "standard" 10" minimum tread, it will likely still work just fine, but that won't keep it from being written up as a deficiency.

*If a deck has a 35" tall railing instead of the minimum 36" "standard" it will likely work just fine, but that won't keep it from being written up as a deficiency.

*If an interior closet door closes but doesn't "latch" because the striker plate needs to be adjusted by 1/4", it will still close just fine, but that doesn't keep it from being written up as a deficiency.

*If an attic has plenty of insulation but has one spot that for some reason the insulation is missing or very thin, it will likely work just fine, but that doesn't keep it from getting written up as a deficiency.

*If the set of classy brick steps leading from the garage into the house has one step that is a slightly different height than the others, it will likely work just fine, but that doesn't keep it from getting written up as a deficiency.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. Some of the examples I listed above could be fixed very easily, but some would require considerable "rebuilding" to make fit the "standard". And there are many more things that would be MUCH harder to correct or rebuild that could be written up as deficiencies even though they've been that way since the house was built with zero indication of any problem whatsoever and little likelihood of any future problem... yet they're still listed as a "deficiency".

This inspection game is a messed up game as far as I'm concerned because in many instances it replaces common sense and logic with a "yes or no" question.

All those things SHOULD be written up and included as non-standard or deficiencies. What are you suggesting, that they shouldn't be noted?

The buyer is hiring the inspector to tell him EVERYTHING about the house he's buying.

That doesn't mean the buyer will or should ask for all or any of them to be fixed by the seller. Obviously some of them should be fixed, some of them don't have to be fixed, and some of them can't be fixed. But they should be noted.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by Chas863

It's not the house that's the problem. It's the inspector's reports that call out all kind of silly $*** that I have to try to explain to the buyer that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Examples of the "silly s**t" on the inspections for your home?

[BirdieBelle]

Originally Posted by Chas863

Yes, I'm aware that the seller can simply refuse to do any "repairs" that they deem trivial, but the buyer (in many cases) doesn't know "trivial" from "important". They think (or pretend) that everything is earth shattering. And if the deal falls through and the house is put back on the market, it tarnishes the reputation, and therefore the value, of the house while the buyer skips merrily along to another house with no blemishes on him/her whatsoever.

Man, this is becoming a pathetic revenge fantasy.

Is this the first time you've sold a house? You're taking this process way too personally.

Nobody "thinks or pretends" everything is earth-shattering. Your house doesn't have a "reputation," unless something quite unsavory happened there.

Seriously, each seller has to deal with whatever buyer comes along the best way they can. Some will be reasonable, and some will be like you and insert emotion into the process. Those are the hardest to work with.