« Installing Sill Plates and Posts at Exposed Columns | Home | Real estate agent finds body in Montgomery County home »
By Edward Robinson | July 25, 2008
Bruce Carr sent [revisions to the SOP] out and I thought you may be interested in reviewing them. Click the link in this paragraph to download. I am also including an email from John Cahill which was sent out shortly after. Although I do not support Cahill’s opinions 100% I do believe they are not far off and provide interesting comments for discussion. I do generally support the idea that the SOP as written are not good for the industry and the trend in how they are written generally diminish the profession.
I would like to hear your comments on this subject. I also encourage you to send your comments to the TREC inspectors committee.
Taken from public email:
The proposed Standards are a poorly written document and a trial lawyers smorgasbord.
Several forces drive this.
1) Some inspectors are threatened by competition they perceive as doing lesser inspections. These threatened inspectors tend to offer very comprehensive code like inspections and they cannot compete in a Realtor controlled marketing environment. Therefore they write rules that intend to force others to do what they do so their marketing does not get hurt. The first documented case of this was a prior Inspector Committee member from San Antonio in 1996. He was the person who insisted homes be compared to modern GFCI and he was bold enough on more than one occasion to say Realtors blackballed him because he did it. Therefore, TREC IC adopted a rule to make everyone do it like the San Antonio IC member and called it “public protection”. The fact is the industry adjusts to such requirements with a few checkboxes or departures. TREC then waters it down with an Inspector Committee “safety” document that gives the Realtor all the rope they need to downplay the requirements with “its Grandfathered”. Document attached.
2) Some inspectors have a “savior” mentality. They never had or have lost sight of the fundamental purpose of home inspection and find themselves empowered and center stage with this type of language. An omnipotence so to speak. Many don’t actually do full time inspections. Their influence on the SoP is detrimental to free enterprise.
3) Some inspectors who support the proposed SoP fit the description of 1 and or 2 above. The others simply so not understand the document or are socialists.
4) The sheer number of words have the perception of empowering the bureaucracy. TREC is not evil but they practice what all governmental agencies do . . empire building with more words.
5) The IC did not create rules for revision to control the authoring process. The document is therefore wildly variable and inconsistent. Descriptive in some areas, prescriptive in others and concise in others. Inconsistency creates interpretation problems.
6) The IC is burnt out. They want to get this done no matter what.
7) Very few people followed this re-write. There is apathy towards a project controlled by 2 key entrenched people.
I do not think this document will improve. Few inspectors will read it and frankly they and the public deserve what they get. One more action item remains that will gut the business. That is coming in the next legislative session.
Topics: Real Estate Inspections, TREC |
Comments
July 25th, 2008 at 6:42 am
My email describe the factors causing the document to be what it is. Those comments will not change or improve the document. The only way to do that is identify what needs to be done and put pressure on TREC.
1) The main improvement is the incredible lack of consistency in format. There are still numerous undefined requirements mixed in with very clearly defined requirements. The IC does not satisfy the Commissioners demand for specificity.
2) The IC does not address safety with specificity. It is disguised in reporting requirements the consumer will not recognize.
3) The IC fails to address consequence. You can tell a person they do not have arc fault but if that person does not know what arc fault is the effort is wasted.
An inspector described the document perfectly. Drudgery. I would add we are charging people a lot of money to provide them information they really do not care about. Government at its worst.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I generally agree with your comments here as stated in my post of your email.
As you may know I believe the SOP best serves the public when it is brief and not prescriptive. Far from what we have or what is proposed. Let TAREI, ASHI, or TPREIA write standards and let inspectors select the standards that meet their abilities. You can bet that the capitalistic system and litigation will weed out those who cannot do the work correctly and reward those who do their jobs. Tough world but that is how it works. This also is the way a true profession works. You put responsibility on people and expect them to perform. TREC needs to write standards which define the ethics under which we work and not the specific actions we should take to do our work. When this happens you kill creativity and professionalism.
Government cannot do it better. They never could at much of anything. A government body cannot respond to changes in the industry as fast as an association. If we do not get TREC out of the buisiness of micromanaging our inspections then home inspectors in Texas will not continue to gain respect.
I agree that there are areas of the sop both proposed and existing of which nobody buying a home cares and the SOP has done nothing to improve inspections. Clearly half the TREC reports I see ignore the standardized form and the SOP. Making it more restrictive and prescriptive will have no positive effect.