« Group E-mail Etiquette | Home | Is There a Conspiracy at TREC? »
New SOP Proposed in Texas. Will It Cost You?
By Edward Robinson | June 3, 2008
Table of contents for Changes to The TREC Inspectors Standards of Practice
- TREC Proposed Revisions Which Affect Inspectors
- New SOP Proposed in Texas. Will It Cost You?
- The Last Days of Home Inspection as a “Profession”
Introduction
In my daily work I often get to speak with Realtors about what is going on in the inspector community related to the TREC. I am often surprised that Realtors are not aware of the new laws and regulations being considered for imposition on inspectors or the potential effects such actions can have on real estate transactions. The bottom line is that the actions of the TREC can significantly complicate the sale of a house, often needlessly. This was the case when TREC required we point out specific items in need of mandatory repair without consideration or judgment from the inspector related to the site conditions. This has never been more true than it is for the Standards of Practice (SOP) currently under consideration by the TREC which is posted for public comment on their web site.
False Pretenses
TREC has stated publicly that these standards have no cost for implementation.
“….Assistant General Counsel, has determined that for the first five-year period the new rules are in effect there will be no fiscal implications for the state or for units of local government as a result of enforcing or administering the new rules. There is no anticipated impact on small businesses, microbusinesses or local or state employment as a result of implementing the new rules.”
This is a misleading statement given the time I know my company will incur in review of the new SOP and associated Inspection Form and the time necessary to integrate changes into my data collection and report generation software. No doubt my competitors have the same costs either “in-house” or due to charges from their software vendor. Costs will also be incurred to cover the time necessary to train to the new standards. As you might imagine, in a capitalist non-utopian society this cost will not be incurred by the company but will passed on to our client base if we are to stay in business. Additional costs to the public will likely be imposed on sellers forced to upgrade systems which meet code prescribed in the SOP but not in actual existing active code to please a potential buyer based upon a TREC inspectors report which is written to meet these standards.
Increases in Aggravation and the Cost of Doing Business
One direct cost increase will be directly related to the length of the inspection, which will have to increase if an inspector is going to closely follow the proposed SOP. I know that most Realtors don’ like the time off they get during inspections and wish they would move faster so if the inspector on your next job chooses to fully comply with the SOP requirements you can expect to spend more time with them. This increase in time is apparent is several locations, but just taking into consideration the electrical section I will give you two examples under the existing revision.
535.289,(a),(8) and (10) - The new provisions for the inspection of the service panels will require substantial increases in time for the inspection. All accessible gutters and raceways must be opened and inspected in order to comply with the new standard to insure there are no hazards which will damage wiring. This will add significantly to the complexity and length of a standard inspection. This new requirement also adds additional risk to the safety of the inspector and the property. The cost and time requirements of a standard inspection will be substantially higher based on these new requirements. This was not previously required.
535.289, (c), (3), (g) - Under the section of the SOP which requires evaluation of the electrical system, there is a requirement to inspect deficiencies in wiring, wiring terminations, junctions, junction boxes, and fixtures. Complying with this requirement will be exhaustive and time consuming as the inspector appears to be required to locate and open all junctions. If not performed by the inspector, there will be a long, and probably confusing, discussion with the client at the start of the inspection work to clear up this requirement by indicating that there will be a departure. This was not previously required.
More Code Citations
Another serious problem with the proposed SOP is that the proposed SOP attempts to divorce themselves from referencing code at the beginning of the document, as indicated in the following section:
“535.227 (b), (3), (C), (i) - The inspector is not required to determine insurability, warrantability, suitability, adequacy, capacity, reliability, marketability, operating costs, recalls, life expectancy, age, energy efficiency, vapor barriers, thermostatic operation, code compliance, utility sources, or manufacturer or regulatory requirements;”
When reading the proposed standards in other sections, code is clearly cited; however, it is not given in context, and in some cases, the code cited does not match the existing codes, either in effect or proposed for the future. More often the cited code in the SOP is not consistent with the code when the building was constructed even in late model homes due to the more rapid advances in codes over the last 10 years. The code is actually changing faster than local code authorities have time to review, so it is a poor idea to reference code at all. This is the single biggest problem with a prescriptive SOP of this type.
A good example of this is the changing codes for the use of Arc Fault Interrupters or AFCIs. The new version of the standards of practice indicates that essentially all rooms of the house will require the presence of Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter protection under 535.229, (a), (17) and the newly issued National Electric Code Requirement (NEC) which is not currently recognized by all cities and will not be found in many new homes. The standards are written to indicate that the lack of AFCI protection constitutes a “deficiency”. As written, this will result in more itemized repairs for the homeowner that should not be required. This new requirement on the surface appears to force homeowners to upgrade aspects of their homes unnecessarily. While the forms proposed to go along with the SOP now remove any requirement for repair we all know that this is the end game for many of our clients. This will clearly increase the confusion for the parties involved.
A good example of an item in the proposed SOP for inspection of stairs which is not consistent with actual code states that
“(1) spacing between intermediate balusters, spindles, or rails for steps, stairways, guards, and railings that permit passage of an object greater than 4 inches in diameter, except that on the open side of the staircase treads, spheres less than 4-3/8 inches in diameter may pass through the guard rail balusters or spindles”
Although this will meet codes not yet adopted this does not meet the current IRC 2000 code adopted in the State of Texas or the Codes in many large cities where the actual text of the code does not allow a sphere of 4-3/8 inches to pass below the stairs. In areas of the SOP statements are taken from code publications, but the citations are incomplete and do not include exceptions or the associated rules for applying these specifications. This is a dangerous and potentially litigious error. The SOP should not pick and choose code for inspection purposes, but if reference is necessary in some instances, a reference to specific items should simply include a reference to the appropriate code body in its entirety to include the proper context.
This leaves the question that if you are going to specify code in your document, which year and issuing code body will you reference? The point is that citing such code in the SOP is hazardous since it will change and arguably should not be done to accommodate very old structures where it is not reasonable to suggest code updates as part of a “condition of property” type inspection. I argue that it is only reasonable to inform a client of a condition that may be recognized as being unsafe and not meeting current code, but which may have been acceptable when the building was constructed. It is unlikely that a client will tear out the stairs in a building constructed in 1890 because the inspector states the balusters are too wide and unreasonable to suggest it should be performed. Simply providing the information to the client of the hazard should be sufficient. This general consideration was not given sufficient weight in this version of the SOP.
Conclusion
These problems are likely to cause unnecessary friction between a buyer and a seller and obscure more serious problems. More to the point a prescriptive code of this type seems to miss the point of why homes are inspected. It is not to determine every an all defects or every safety violation but to provide a buyer with some idea of the general condition of the property so they may make a generally informed purchase. I would like to see the SOP removed from consideration for adoption and revised to a document which is not prescriptive and which does not cite codes.
These are my opinions and observations and you may have your own. I encourage you to take the time to leave your own comments and to make comments to the TREC through the links below. The only way to insure we obtain the of standards we want is to participate where we can in the time we have.
The proposed standards of practice have not yet been approved. You have until June 16th to make your comments known to the TREC. I urge you to contact the TREC and let them know that you believe the proposed SOP do not provide protection for the public and are in need of further work.
You can contact the TREC through their web site by clicking here.
You can visit the TREC web site and view proposed changes here.
Topics: TREC |