*
In our state, the home inspector contract is subject to a 4 year statute of limitations. They must repair or replace.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Skim-coating with joint compound covers texture, renews old drywall and plaster, and leaves smooth surfaces ready to paint.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
The home inspection can only reveal problems that are visible - Areas that require removal of material or finish surfaces cannot be inspected - & therefore no liability ( if he uses the proper contract form)
However if there were physical manifestations of a sagging floor or racked doors /windows he should have investigated further & may have discovered or inferenced a problem
*
Andrew, I found a great electrician. He charges by "the job", not the hour. I may pay a little more for his work, but frankly, I don't care, because I know what his bill will be before he even starts work and there are no surprises. We have had over 90% of the electric in this house re-done, and still have some more to do!
*Isn't that the result of a good estimate?Or a padded bill.........................
*Well, my home electrician is just fine -- me -- I meant a friend I subbed who made a couple of, ah, oversights that led to zaps of the sparky kind -- at the expense of my gray hairs.I don't think I could do T&M for very many things ... I have enough people (3 right now) asking me, "How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take? How long is it going to take?"
*Hi! I do home inspections on a part-time basis in the ASHI standard. My clients are required to sign a disclaimer before I look at anything, and if there is a problem after the inspection ( something I may have missed), then the cost of the inspection may be refunded. However, I am extremely thorough and have never given a refund yet.Regards,Don
*
I live in south Florida and here any walkin talking rectum can get a license to do just about anything he or she wants to including so called home inspectors. Do your homework!
*
It's good to know that there is someplace that Luka and I can get a license if we ever decide we need one.
Rich Beckman
*LOL Yeah !! Hey Rich, I think we should get inpectors' lisences there and do the house inspections by ESP. (remote seeing.)
*Bob Walker's discussion was bang on. I suggest that there is something we can do about this right now, which is keep our eyes peeled for the inspectors who are doing a good job of it, and talk them up. Word of mouth is very effective.
*
I'm currently workin on a fairly snazzy "seasonal"(not by design, just by occupance)
place that is about 18 years old. The present owners bought less than two years ago,
and had it "inspected" prior to purchase.
I've just discovered that a 40 feet run of the mudsill is rotted away, with considerrable
rot in the joist ends and joist header. This has been caused by a combo of poor
perimeter drainage where the cedar siding is now about 1" below grade in places, and no gutters
for about 1400 sq. ft of roof shed. Now all of this would have been evident 2 years
ago. . . there is easy access, and good visibility in the basement, where mice have
pulled the f/g insul from between most of the joist ends. The new owners haven't done
any work to exacerbate the problem which is obviously many years old.
Here's the "Q".
While I have no intention of blowing the whistle on whoever did the "inspection" would
they be liable in any way? Would you be liable if you had done the inspection?? Would
the previous owner be liable?? In this case no deductions were made for any "work
that needed doing". These people actually paid the asking price, because it was about
to be taken off the market, and they
i just had to have it!!
Just curious.
-pm
*Pat,
View Image © 1999-2000"Whenever, therefore, people are deceived and form opinions wide of the truth, it is clear that the error has slid into their minds through the medium of certain resemblance's to that truth." Socrates
*First lesson: If you can't walk away from a deal because you "just have to have it" then you should run away from the deal - you won't be objective.It would seem to me that this situation is pretty clear cut and that the inspector dropped the ball and has some liability. The selling homeowners would have much less liability because they are not expected to know what they are looking at. Unless you can find some "smoking gun" documentation that they got a bid to fix the rot and then didn't do the work nor disclose the defect. Not that you ever find paperwork. But sometimes the guy you bring in to bid on it was the same guy who looked at it 3 years ago.Joe points out that the inspector probably has lots of loopholes in his contract, but didn't the buyer pay the inspector? So what did they pay for? This doesn't sound like a legimate hidden defect but rather negligence which is almost always actionable. (Whereas, if the seller paid, then the work was done for the sole benifit of the seller and other parties don't have much right to go after the inspector). Andrew D, where are you?The issue for home inspection liability that comes up at lot here (no building permits outside city limits) is after the house is built out-of-pocket and the owner tries to sell. Finds out that no bank will loan on an uninspected house and almost no one can pay cash for a (usually shitty) house. So then they are trying to get an independent ICBO inspector to sign off on it after the fact. I know people who are counting on this even as they are hanging drywall over all the pipes and wires. They've heard about people getting it done. I try to point out that I'd never put my stamp (Civil PE) on anything I hadn't actually witnessed and that they're pinning their hopes on finding an inspector desperate or dumb enough to accept that kind of work. What do people think? Ever sign off on a completed house? -David
*Patrick..this is contract and real estate law...1)what are the terms of the inspection contract?2) what are the real estate laws in te jurisdiction?here in RI the laws are getting more complex all the time.. one thing , the Former Owners have to sign a "Full Disclousre " statement listing all the known defects..usuall means that both parties hire seperate inspectors and each lists any known defects, then these are addressed prior to closing...in Texas, i am told the forms run to about 12 pages...in Michigan , nothing...but someone who operates in those areas can set me staraight...God and the Queen onlt know what they hold for the law in Canada...so... under the contract law, the inspector could be sued for negligence..and in real estate law , the former owners "could" be charged with fraud or non-disclosure...clever lawyers can usuually find someone to charge in your scenario.....b all lawyers are a scourge... except mine..Pogo
*Patrick, Young divorcee bought the house across the street from me last year. The previous owners considered slopping some paint on a renovation. She hired a home inspector. He went over the obvious, told her for an old house it was in good shape. As they sit on her front porch finishing up the paper work, he look across the street and comments the yellow house needs to be re shingled. I own the yellow house. We'll skip over introductions, the "carpenter" she hired, and the sobbing knock on the door. Jump ahead a couple weeks and I'm replacing 20' of rim joist, mud sill and masonry foundation wall. Upon entering the front door, you were greeted with clunk. It was a remnent of a free swing joist. The concrete porch that the inspector had just week earlier sat on was undermined and pitch inward towards the house. With no gutters it collected the run off and directed it to the house. She let me look over his contract. I wish I had the nerve to use one a good. This guy could not be held lible for libe for anything, missed or other wise! At worse, if the case went to a mediator, the contract stated he could not be sued in court, he would have to return her money.
*It's a shame, isn't it? The basic problem is uneducated or uncounseled buyers; Patrick's are apparently victims of their own blind desire for this particular place. But foolishness doesn't license cheaters to do as they please.For general reference, try http://www.nolo.comOK, I'm not practicing law, but Mike's basically right, down to asserting clever lawyers can find someone for you to sue. It becomes a judgment call as to how good the claim is, how much it is worth, what chance a court will see it the same way, and how much it will cost to recover on it. The better course is caveat emptor, you never have more leverage than when the money is in your pocket instead of the seller's (or home inspector's).First, property law is complex and VERY local, with the more complex jurisdictions having the most complex laws (e.g., California and New York). So check with a practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction, etc... The other half of this is tort law concerning fraud/deceit, i.e., lying to someone by act or omission to induce them to part with the green stuff, where they probably wouldn't if they knew what was going on.Against the SELLER, there are many "common law" rules going back as least centuries re fraud in land transfers, particularly residential. One of the big ones, mentioned above, is the seller's obligation to disclose KNOWN defects, BUT only defects which are not reasonably observable to the buyer (or some wording like that). I assume commercial parties have less right to cry foul, as one would expect them to be used to a bare-knuckles world.My favorite is the cockroach story: every time the buyers visited the house, they noticed the sellers had the entire house ablaze with light. They couldn't figure out why until they moved in. Lights out reveled that the place was overrun by an impossible-to-exterminate horde of THOUSANDS of cockroaches. Defect known to seller, seller did not disclose, buyer could not observe defect thanks to interference from seller (short of knocking holes in the walls, which normal buyers do not do), defect was material, thus buyer recovered against seller.Add to rules like this state laws that require seller to disclose lead paint, asbestos, fire-retardant plywood, insects, and so on. SOME require the seller to test for the various conditions, OTHERS only require disclosure of seller's actual knowledge (why "actual"? to distinguish it from "constructive" -- don't get me started...). State of mind is tough to prove absent, yes, a "smoking gun."Anyway, I'll take a wild guess that problems this obvious didn't HAVE TO be disclosed. Buyer should've figured it out, seller had no obligation to educate him. Buyer's in a tough spot.Now the home inspector comes in, as buyer's agent (I don't think it matters who technically paid his bill -- seller thus is not liable). How liable is the inspector? Almost certainly the possible scope is addressed in the contract. Most disclaim liability for mere negligence, some all the way to the hilt as mentioned, promising only return of the purchase price. Many jurisdictions would not allow a disclaimer this broad -- yeah, it depends on the circumstances -- and would make the inspector liable for gross negligence or worse behavior, regardless of the contract terms. The inspector could even be criminally liable at some point.Our inspector actually offered a guaranteed inspection, for $1000 as opposed to the disclaimed-negligence $300 we paid ... I'd like to see the terms of that agreement, it could range from a good deal to the ripoff that our homebuyer's insurance turned out to be.David, what do the banks do with inspector slip-ups? Banks aren't know for their sense of humor. I can understand why they'd require one before handing out $$$.Again, it all depends on local law (sigh) ... but do remember, just because it's in the contract doesn't mean it is enforceable! Now that I'm "educated," I see lots of illegal clauses in contracts, especially those drafted by non-lawyers like landlords, that are plainly illegal. It was pretty funny all the ones I later found in my law school apartment's lease -- even though I read it when I moved in! (Especially the "distraint of chattels" clause -- anyone know that one?)Doesn't look good, does it? But it wouldn't hurt to try. Too many people figure, well I learned my lessons and won't do it again. But what about the bozo inspector who's off to bilk as many as he can? I don't think inspectors should be liable for everything -- they hardly make enough, and they're not like the builders, only spending a few hours in and around the places, and not doing any destructive testing (opening walls and such). However, more accountability is needed.Jake, you got them shingles done yet?
*Andrew,The banks generally don't care much because they don't hold the loans (at least the markets I'm aware of). There can be a slap on the wrist for excessive losses, fraudulent appraisals, poor docs, but they are looking for Empirica scores and volume now, not quality. It's more likely that the Bank would want an inspector with at least one blind eye.. if there is an inspection at all.Bill
*Perhaps the inspector could be sued on grounds of utter negligence or fraud as opposed to "missing" things wrong with the house.I also believe there is an insurance that is either optional or is included in with the sale of your house that guards you agaoinst serious defects in the building and will pay for the repair but I don't recall much more about it at this point in time.Pete
*Andrew: I think the only time the banks would go after an inspector would be after a foreclosure but those houses are often so trashed and poorly maintained by the defaulting owners it might be hard to tell what was pre-existing at time of sale. I assume it is a Fannie Mae, FHA, VA, etc requirement for any home loan. Just like loan-to-value ratios and debt-to-income ratios that must be met. They need to meet the requirement and an inspectors signature does that. Bill: It may be a more strigent requirement up here because so many houses aren't inspected. Just like flood plains are probably checked more thoroughly in Louisiana and termite inspections in Hawaii.It is a pretty common development up here that a home can't get approval and therefore there are a lot of "owner-financed" homes on the market, often for a long time. A real bummer to get locked into a house when your life takes you somewhere else.Andrew: I just checked out your baby's pictures, here are mine: http://www.alaska.net/~dthomas -David
*You've got the right idea, Pete -- "utter" is basically "gross" negligence, where the inspector unintentionally does something really really stupid, as opposed to merely incompetent, which = mere negligence; fraud is distinguished by intent, that is a conscious desire to cheat (or a "willful blindness" as to truth or falsity, the so-called ostrich defense).These are all rough attempts to assign specific terms to what gut instincts tell you are different levels of blameworthiness.
*In our state, the home inspector contract is subject to a 4 year statute of limitations. They must repair or replace.
*My home inspector was bonded and insured. If I had found any material defects in the house that I didn't know from his report within 2 years (I think that's right) of taking possession of the house, I could claim under his liability insurance. Of course, I would have to prove that he should have know about it, but that's easy enough with the inspectors report - it has lots of pages with lots of check off points that he is supposed to inspect and sign off on. I'm sure the laws are different in Canada, though, Patrick. Maybe you could contact your version of the American Society of Home Inspectors - they cautioned us here not to have your home inspected by anyone who wasn't a member of that organization. I'm sure such a group would information on liability issues.
*Indeed, your protection was probably not due to any "laws," but to the contractural agreement with your inspector.Did this inspection cost more? (How much?)
*Here's an interesting thought for discussion. Why do you think that banks require a deposit on mortgages? Is it to protect themselves with a small cushion of protection (your equity) in case the real estate market corrects itself or is it so that any mistakes that need to be fixed can be deducted from the approximate Fair Market Value to provide you with about the same figure as the mortgage. The banks are in the business of making money - not building homes! Statisticians have determined how little equity a mortgagee must posess without defaulting on the mortgage or devaluing the property through deliberate neglect. I don't believe you'll find the figures in any shareholder's statement but I'm sure they are out there! Does this seem like a conspiracy theory to you? Where do you think most perspective home owners get their recommendations for building inspectors? People who are in the business of selling houses will not continue to refer an individual who markets themselves as an unbiased third party. In fact, the inspector should not even be unbiased. The inspector should be absolutely paranoid! I hired an "inspector " when I bought my first house. This was several years ago before I began to learn about construction practices. In fact, I can thank the inspector for helping to introduce me to the building trade. I didn't feel "qualified" to inspect the roof, the basement, the electrical system, the furnace, and any other potential flaws in the building. I paid for and received a very well organized check list with lots of little boxes to be checked off. These boxes were all checked off with a comment stating that the house was in good condition. I purchased the house for a little below the asking price. Several months later, I found out that the flat roof was leaking and required replacing. I went up on to the roof for the first time and found significant neglect. I found several holes about the size of my thumb and a couple of tears in the seams. I didn't go onto the roof because I didn't feel qualified. My inspector had checked the roof off as being "GOOD". I believe he didn't go onto the roof either! The price of the inspection was $350. Further searching found that liability was limited to the price of the inspection and that mediation was required in order to settle any disputes. Since the roof was going to cost me $7500 CND, I decided I'd get my inspection fee back at the minimum. I found out that I had to pay $50/hour for mediation and the inspector chuckled over the phone and told me that he'd only show up if it was convenient and that any decision made by the mediator was not binding. I realized quickly that I had been screwed. I had to fix the roof immediately since it had caused the living room ceiling to collapse. The insulation was sawdust which had soaked up all the rain water. It was an enormous mess. I couldn't believe that they had used wood chips in the ceilings, and walls in a climate where the temperature goes down to -40 C. (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada) Anyway, the roof was professionally done with financial assistance from my parents. I requested a number of quotes for the interior. The one small silver lining to this story was how disgusted the contractors were when I told them the story. They were not surprised since that had heard similar stories before. However, a few of them sugested to me that if I was prepared to accept a little bit less quality, a lot more work and a little less expense I should attempt the job myself. I was already in considerable debt after the roof so I learned how to insulate and drywall. If anyone wants to know how not to drywall, I am an expert! The good news is that I sold the house,broke even and moved into university residence. I'm still looking for another house but now I would do it a lot differently! I'd do a complete inspection myself with a ladder, and once it had passed my "unqualified" check list, I'd get a plumber, an electrician, and a HVAC man to give me their most paranoid opinions. You'll be dealing with these tradesman in the future - what better opportunity than to introduce yourself before you buy the house! At a hundred dollars a piece, they can tell you more in fifteen minutes than a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none can in an inspection. They can also provide quotes that can be used in negotiating a selling price. I apologize for the length of my comment. I enjoy this site very much and it isn't often that I feel qualified to provide an enlightened opinion to the masses...
*I've considered jumping into the home inspection arena a couple of times. It seems like good money for little work.I've decided against it because I couldn't possibly look at every detail of a house in three hours and give an accurate, complete report that I'd be willig to stand behind. I've looked at houses for friends and given it the cursory 3 hour check and said that then house was pretty good, found a few problems. But I'd never be able to look a client in the eye and tell them that in that short a time, I had checked everything and there was nothing to worry about.
*Hey Doug,Do you fish? I've been up to Churchill River and Reindeer Lake a few times, you sure are lucky to live up that way
*Douglas,Banks do it simply to reduce their risk, both in the cost of foreclosure and default in general. In most markets you can get them to take more risk, but they'll charge you for it. 90% financing will cost you more than 80%, 98% more than 90% (again generally) but frankly it should, because they ARE in business to make money. Stats show that losses are higher on 90% financing than 80%. Thus higher pricing. Banks can pretty much predict delinquency and charge off in a stable economy, trouble is, it never is stable. One plant closing can cause major problems, let alone a depression.Bill
*I don't know if it cost more or not - he was recommended by a friend. His fee was $200.00. I thought that was reasonable considering what we were buying, and considering it was (is) a very old house. He did find (2) things pretty bad that he recommended us getting looked at by professionals in those fields - a structural engineer (was worried about a bow in the foundation - wasn't sure if it had just settled that way or if it was still moving. The material is clay tile) and an electrician. The electrician we knew we had to have so that wasn't a shock. The structural engineer cost another $150 for his inspection, but was well worth it. 75 feet of the foundation had failed and needed to be replaced, and we negotiated the price of the house with that in mind. I'm sooooooo glad we found out before we bought it, though. It would have been a very ugly surprise later on -
*Dear Mr. Mad Dog,You bet I fish! I went fishing with a couple of friends that helped me dry wall. (By the way: Lesson #1 on how not to dry wall - When getting friends to help, serve beer after ceiling is up! NOT BEFORE!) We went to Waskesue where Grey Owl's cabin was. I've spent a lot of time in the north and the trappers cabins are quite interesting. You can imagine the amount of time it must have taken. They all seem different except that they are all built with minimum labor and minimum hand tools. I wish I had taken photos. They would make a great collection!
*Bill- welcome back.My opinion on "Home Inspectors"- Not enough regulation/ qualifiers across the board to place much trust in that industry. I have been in far too many disasters pronounced healthy by Inspectors to place much faith.I agree with Bill- inspections are driven by lenders to stear liability elsewhere. "Right up what we need, Get the loan done..."Accredation needs to be verified by the home buyer with terms and warranties from the inspector in writing. Legal and binding...
*Here's the wording on the Canadian inspection authorization form for my home:i "The Client requests the inspection of the Subject Property subject to the following limitations and conditions: i The inspection is performed in accordance with the standards of Practice of the American Society of Home Inspectors enclosed herewith.i The report is an opinion of the present condition of the property, based on a visual inspection of the readily accessible features of the building. The inspection is not a guarantee, warranty or an insurance policy. i The Client agrees and understands that the liability of __________ , its employees and agents is limited to the Fee."This is followed by 8 pages of Standards of Practice. The inspection is only a tool, the buyer is still on his own.
*Hi BeaWelcome back. For those that asked I have no idea what the particulars are regarding i my customers "inspector". I may get more info in a couple of weeks from them, but I'm not planning to become part of that loop... but I may not be able to avoid it.Seems a shame. They probably thought they were covering their asses, and offsetting their emotional desires by engaging an inspector, or it may have simply been a requisite for a mortgage.. . I'm not privy to that info either. As alwaysb Caveat Emptor.-pm
*We've bought several homes and done it just about everyway possible. Had one inspected (since my employeer was paying for it) and backed out of the deal because of it -- he found a lot of loose brick (mortar too sandy) and some foundation problems which I might not have seen.In our locale, as a seller, you have to check off a fairly lengthy "disclosure" list -- the gist of it is you have to disclose any problems that you (the owner) have knowledge of. This could be helpful if say, it was a one owner home and you later find evidence the roof was patched -- the owner had to have knowledge of that. The last one we bought, the inspector found evidence the roof had leaked (not too serious, and repaired correctly) but the owners didn't check that box on the disclosure. I had them to rights and confronted their realtor -- it became a bargaining chip in our favor.Patrick, you might ask them if the previous owners filled out any sort of disclosure form.
*In Ontario, the vendors disclosure form is not black and white. You have the choice of checking off yes, no or unknown. "Unknown" leaves much room for debate. It would have to be proven that the previous owners were aware of the problem, even as obvious at it may seem. What a mess! Patrick, I wish your clients the best of luck.Beatrix
*In this particular case it would only be obvious to an inspector.. .doubt most homeowners would wanna stick their hands into a wad of mouse chewed f/g to see what was goin on in there. But by the time I got in there, some cavities were almost bare, and my trouble light revealled somethin "wierd" in there from several feet away... mudsill rotted cracked and heaved between joists which had squished it almost flat.The only disclosure area that I have seen "must" be filled out in Ontario has to do with UFFI insul. Serious stuff if you lie about that one I hear!!-pm
*Great return on the investment!Glad your electrician wasn't any "shock" -- mine's been zapping me a lot lately for some reason.
*Fascinating discussion. Here's my take as a home inspector.Re Patrick's original post:>I do the exterior first, and would have had concerns for that kind of damage when I got to the basement. Assuming the components were readily visible and reachable _at the time of the inspection_ it sounds like it should have been caught. Sometimes (not often, but it happens) you just can't see or reach stuff because of excessive storage. This is more likely to happen in a crawl where folks have piled stuff just inside the crawl access, but I've been in basements crammed full of stuff. Personally, I'm pretty cautious about moving stuff, I don't want claims I broke the Ming dynasty teacup stored in the ratty old cardboard box, I don't want to throw my back out, and I don't want to disturb nests.In such a case, I'd advise my clients about (i) the heightened risk from the ground contact and poor drainage and (ii) the limited accessibility, and suggest that the request the stored items be removed so I can come back and reinspect.As noted in several of the messages, laws vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction regarding liability and owner disclosure requirements. The starting point is caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Many states have enacted seller disclosure laws, and these vary from state to state. The ones I'm familiar with require disclosure on "known" defects. Tough to prove knowledge. (In PA, the seller's disclosure laws require you to list your occupation. When I sold my home there several years ago, I provided what I suspect was the longest seller's disclosure ever provided. )Home inspector liability is also a complex subject. Most home inspectors I know limit their liability, typically to the fee charged for the inspection. Note that some states (CA that I know for sure) do not allow such limits. Many home inspectors also limit the "statute of limitations" for filing claims. This is done in the contract the client signs.Taken at face value, this seems pretty crummy. There is a justification, however. Market forces and expectations limit (i) fees which can be charged and (ii) time available for the inspection. In my neck of the woods (NW Ohio) fees seem to range from $175 to $240 for an "average" house (i.e., about 2,000 sq ft and built after WWII), and the market expects the inspection to take 2 1/2 to 3 hours. There is a strong pressure from the RE industry (and from the average fees) to keep the time for inspections within that time frame, and the reality of the business is that most home inspectors have to market their services through RE agents. As do many HI's, I offer my clients a choice of the "standard" inspection for the "standard" fee and the limitation on liability, or an "inspection plus" which lifts the limit on liability for additional fees. The largest HI company in my area does the same, and its owner tells me that in over 12,000 inspections, they've only been asked once for an "inspection plus!"Personally, I haven't had to invoke the limitation on liability, and I'm about to fork over some $ well above the limit for some needed chimney repairs I should have caught.How much do I rely on my contractual limitation on liability? I carry errors and omissions insurance.FWIW, an additional condition on liability typically included in HI contracts is the right to notice and reinspection prior to repairs being made. Many problems are subjective as to their importance and as to their existence. For example, some contractors have been known to exaggerate the implications of a problem and the degree of work required to correct it, and sometimes they have been known to be mistaken. Also (and probably most often,) there are plain old differences of opinion. As a home inspector, I want to opportunity to re-inspect and get other opinions and quotes. An example from a friend of mine: he supposedly missed a leak in a boiler. The buyer's HVAC company said the boiler had to be replaced for something like $2,000. Another HVAC company (the one with the greatest experience with boilers in an area where 95% of the homes, at least, use forced air) felt the boiler could be repaired for about $500. On the chimney repairs I'm about to pay for, the quotes ranged from $800 to $2,200!One of the things I emphasize to my clients is what they are getting, and _not_ getting for their $. I do an American Society of Home Inspectors' Standards of Practice inspection (exceeding the SoPs in a few respects) which is a visual inspection of exposed to view components, and which is not technically exhaustive. I explain to my clients that as a home inspector: "Like your family doctor, I am a generalist, if I see something which I don't like or which isn't done according to standard practices, I might refer you to a specialist for further review." (I say that at the beginning of _every_ inspection.)Often I also say, during the inspection: "You recall that I mentioned that I am a generalist. If I knew as much as a licensed electrician, a licensed plumber, a heating and air conditioning contractor, a structural engineer, an appliance service person, etc, I'd being driving a Mercedes truck and have 2 or 3 boys to carry my ladders and toolbox, and you'd be writing a bigger check."I do _not_ do a code inspection: I do inspections in about 10-12 different code jurisdictions and in most cases, I do not know when various components of the house were installed. I don't believe anyone could know all of the changes in code in so many jurisdictions over the years, and even if they could, how could they opine, for example, on whether a remodeled kitchen without GFI's in the appropriate locations was done to code if they don't know when the remodel was done?Andrew comented: >I agree completely. In Ohio, we're trying to get a licensing bill passed which should (i) limit (or at best, eliminate the bozos) and (ii) provide some accountability. A number of states have passed licensing laws for HI's and bills are being considered in many more."distraint of chattels" Doesn't everyone know that's to seize or take possession of any item of movable or immovable property except real estate, or the freehold, or the things which are parcel of it? (Thank you, "Webster's New International Dictionary" 2nd Ed.)Douglas Tompson noted: <>Yep, although (i) I'm not so sure about the $ they'd charge and would (ii) quibble over the time it'd take them. Also, what about the roof? Foundation? Structure? Operation of the appliances? Condition of the walls? Doors & windows? Condition of the kitchen and bath cabinetry? Interior surfaces? Etc., etc.Also, tradesmen tend to overly focus on code issues. Although it can be useful to know that, say the knife switch disconnect doesn't meet code, usually buyers are operating within a narrow price range and area, and its likely that most, if not all the homes they'll be looking at have the same issues. So long as they understand that, good. I've done inspections, though, where my clients have had friends in the trades stop by and create skewed expectations.I believe part of the service I offer is to give my clients a sense of perspective on the problems I find. I don't believe I'd be serving my clients by exaggerating problems or not letting them know that the problems I'm finding are typical of comparable homes which they could be looking at.<> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but you can believe that I go into every inspection scared. When I arrive at each inspection, I remind myself of the phone call I once got reporting that a house I'd inspected had burned down (probably electrical) and how I felt while digging out the report. I remind myself that with each inspection, my client's lives and health are in my hands (as well as my famly's financial security.) (BTW, no one was hurt in the fire and I'd recommended that the house not be occupied until it was fully inspected by an electrician and the numerous major problems corrected. The seller was present and so informed.)Ryan C commented: >The money's ok but not what you'd expect. Little work? Well, without getting into too much detail: I spend 3/4 hour at the start of the day on paperwork, getting ready for the day. (Also, an hour or so cruising the internet for information.)At the inspection, I have to stay _completely_ focused on the house and its details for the 3 hours or so it takes: that's while I'm also (a) dealing with the client, [figuring out (i) how nervous they are, (ii) how much information they want and can handle (I'll typically talk more and go into more detail with, say a first time home buyer in a "starter home" than a "suit" in a $500,000 home) and (iii) figuring out if they are understanding what I'm trying to tell them,] (b) dealing with agents, and (c) dealing (sometimes) with hovering home owners. During that time, I'm looking at thousands of square feet of surfaces and thousands of details in the house. I'm also recording everything I'm doing.Between inspections, I'm on the phone answering questions, following up on various issues, reading, eating lunch, and juggling my map figuring out the best route to my next location. If I have time, I'm also marketing.I generally leave about 7:30 AM and get home about 6:30 - 7:00 PM. After I'm home, I'm doing books, keeping records, following up on phone calls, doing research/self-education (including hanging out here.) And marketing.>Two points: First, expectations. I make it clear to my clients that I am not checking _everything_, for example, I will test representative outlets and windows, but not all of them. Also, that the focus of my inspection is major problems. I assure them that I will not find every problem in the house, but if they want me to check everything I'd be happy to do it for additional fees.Second, (not a major point here,) I suspect that I can probably get a lot more done in those three hours than you can, simply because I do it everyday and have had training and practice in how to do it efficiently. Just like a framer would get up a wall a heck of lot faster than I could.doug hubbard commented: <> Yep, I agree<> Don't forget the realtors: recommending HI's cover's their backsides.<> Yep, although you pay extra for warrantiesBob