« Log In and Comment | Home | Real Estate Resources »
Public comment for the Home Inspection Standards of Practice
By John Cahill | July 13, 2008
Table of contents for Public Comment on Texas SOP
- Public comment for the Home Inspection Standards of Practice
- SOP Public comment number 072008
Opening statement:
The quest for specificity and safety in the proposed Standards is gigantic. Most persons will admit the task of Standards revision cannot be accomplished in a single revision cycle. The problem with current TREC rules is that a formal revision process does not exist. The problem is further complicated by General Counsels statement that a Commentary is not enforceable. The result is delay of adoption of a significant revision combined with no formal means of correcting errors or implementing additional clarifications in a regular manner.
Recommendation:
Create within TREC rule a Request for Interpretation (RFI) procedure. The procedure should respond to the licensee or public in a timely manner. The response should be preserved and reviewed annually for permanent inclusion in the Standards of Practice. The interpretations should be made available to all licensees and the public via internet. The interim document could be called “Commentary” although it may not be enforceable until adopted as rule in the Standard.
Example:
The proposed standards states:
(4) report as Deficient:
(A) . . . . . . .
(B) a crawl space that does not appear to be adequately ventilated;
The RFI may ask: Adequate ventilation is not defined. Does adequate mean the inspector must determine if the crawl space complies with current IRC code? Please define adequate.
TREC would reply with the answer, perhaps with or without inspector committee input, within 60 days. The reply would be reviewed the following year for inclusion into the Standards. It would then be enforceable as rule.
Justification:
- The Standards may not meet the concerns of General Counsel as expressed at a TREC Commissioner meeting regarding specificity.
- The Standards do not meet the dictate of the Commissioners to include specificity in the Standards.
- Home inspectors, especially inexperienced ones, may fail to properly interpret the requirement. Inconsistency in reporting would occur. The public could be confused and financially harmed.
- The Standard would be inconsistent thus Non-Standard.
- The lack of clear requirements may increase insurance costs due to increased litigation by lawyers with different interpretations of the standards.
I recommend a Request For Interpretation rule be created that responds with a clear and specific interpretation to the public or inspector within 60 days of receiving the question. The answer should be included in the Standards at the next revision cycle. Revisions should occur annually. It is the responsibility of TREC to provide proper guidance to its licensees in order to protect the public.
A RFI process will expedite development of the current Standards revision in addition to helping all concerned understand the Standards intent.
Thank you,
John Cahill
Past TREC Inspector Committee Chairman
Topics: Real Estate Inspections |
July 15th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Mr Cahill,
as an inspector in Texas, I can see the value in your proposal. I think the public should understand the reason behind an inspector’s determination. However, I wonder how the rule will play out due to one factor. As you are aware, the state of Texas uses the 2000 IRC for the bases of its building codes, and some cities in our state have made their own amendments. Currently, the 2006 IRC codes have been published, and many inspectors are using these codes as the standard, since they meet the current practice in the construction industry. Should counsel rely on current state practice or should we recognize that improvement are being made, so we should focus on new developments?
It has always been my understanding that the SOP was left a bit vague on these points to allow inspectors the leeway to use latest practice. I do think that there should be a means for the public to understand what that is though.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Response to John Cahills post:
John you make several good suggestions, there should be an annual review and TREC should provide a issue clarification method which should then be posted as an opinion then added to the SoP at the next review.
I also think the that SoPs should contain more definitions that they do. The SoPs have several undefined requirement and items.
I do also think that the SoPs, love them or hate them, provide a basis for both the inspector duties and the customer expectations.
Imagine if we were licensed in a state where every inspector made up his own SoP’s…no wonder more states are creating SoP’s.
Mike Cothran
July 16th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Frank: The proposed SoP disclaim code but then cite or infer code. The proposed SoP are vague and lack specificity in many areas and are clear in only a few. The committee does not have a developmental guideline for what code to use or exclude. I believe the committee is informally referencing 2006 IRC and 2008 NEC. If one is going to use code then I would support the latest code. The problem is when the State is using 2000 IRC and TREC is using 2006 IRC it causes inconsistency and confuses the public. It will result in “Your house does not meet 2006 IRC but that does not matter because the State only requires 2000 IRC”. The consumer will ask “What is the 2000 IRC”. The inspector will say “I just follow the TREC SoP; I do not inspect to code”. Result is consumer has no idea what is going on.
The vagueness and leeway you mention is really accidental. In reality the committee tires of writing prescriptive language and falls back to general requirements when it is time to go home. It really is that simple. Understandable seeing as how they are not paid. I think only two of them are code certified and none that I know of have technical writing training. The inspector is at the mercy of the vague requirements being interpreted after the fact. I can sympathize with the publics confusion as even I cannot understand what the SoP expects in many areas. Thus the need for an RFI procedure.
Mike: I suggest you propose your definition request to the committee. Share your ideas and maybe others will endorse them.
California allows inspectors to rely on trade association standards and the vast majority of regulated states rely on ASHI clones. None of those SoP are anywhere as prescriptive or coddling as Texas and there are no huge problems in those states. Texas is writing a gargantuan SoP because the committee can. There is no documented problem that justifies the Texas SoP. It’s all inspector committee “I think we should do this or that”. Of course you know I oppose the monster being written but I can go along with it. I am sure it will provide lots of expert work and am convinced that the quality of inspections will remain exactly the same. Not to sound preaching but God created 10 commandments . . . not 4,362 of them. It is a shame we cannot allow professionals to act as professionals . . but then home inspection is a trade. I will not oppose the monster. In fact I will help grow it. I bet they reject much of the specificity I submit and say “a good inspector should know that”.