"Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean, know what I mean, say no more, say no more! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!"

These lines from an old Monty Python sketch, while originally used in an, umm, ‘different' context, could just as easily apply to certain inspector/Realtor relationships. There are code words that are used in our profession(s) by inspectors and real estate professionals. The purpose of these code words is ‘secret' acknowledgement of an understanding. An understanding that the inspector, wishing to continue getting referrals, will use time tested language (inspectorspeak) to ‘technically' call out a situation (and hopefully cover his rear end from lawsuits or COE violations), while not being completely honest and plain spoken.

Non-alarmist is probably the most oft used code word. It means different things to different people. To an inspector, if he calls himself a non-alarmist, it could mean that he considers his checklist report to be sufficiently ambiguous and loaded with terms like ‘appeared to be satisfactory', ‘functioning at time of inspection', serviceable (whatever the heck that means), or even (yes, I have seen this on an actual report) ‘needs improvement'. Non alarmists are also fond of "recommending further evaluation by the appropriate trade professional", even when they know darn well that something needs repaired or replaced. Recommending further evaluation covers the inspectors butt and gives interested parties the opportunity to minimize the severity of the issue. To some agents a non-alarmist is an inspector who will not tell their (the inspectors) client, in writing, that the A/C is at the end of its' service life, it is running on borrowed time, needs to be replaced and is darn expensive. Rather, they will say that the unit (while knowing it is a goner) ‘functioned at the time of inspection, but needs servicing. Here is an example of non alarmist reporting from a another blog on AR;

The whole matter is complex. What wording will work for one client will not work for another. I just did an inspection for a young couple and every item I pointed out he came back with I can fix that with the exception of the HVAC units. The instant he heard that they were 18 years old he wanted them changed out. The AC did not function well with a 7° Delta T and a suction line beginning to freeze up. The unit probably needs refrigerant but that also means it has a leak. I wrote it up as functional but needing service. So did I sugar coat the issue or was that proper. The unit has R-22 and the phase out period is coming. Would he be better off replacing the unit with a much more efficient unit? Yes he would, this unit is 8 SEER and a new one would be 13 SEER and could have the newer R-410A refrigerant. I did mention this to him. He has been completely informed of his options. Should have I just come out and wrote up the unit as near useful life and in need of replacement? All statements are true but just how to write it up. No two inspectors will write this up the same way. I was an HVAC tech for 20 years and I could keep that unit limping along for a long time but we are talking about a young couple without the benefit of training and they will have to pay for every service call. Naturally you don't want to blow things out of proportion but we always have to keep our clients interests in mind even if it makes the Agent mad.

Keep in mind that a unit made 18 years ago had an average estimated useful life of about 15 yrs.

And my response;

I don't see much ambiguity there. The thing has reached the end of its' useful service life and is showing the effects. Servicing it is a patch. It won't last much longer and has very little value. It should be replaced. You know it and I know it. Why shouldn't your client know it (in writing)?

 What would you tell your daughter/mother/best friend?

 We try to make this stuff way too complicated. You described an HVAC unit that is basically worthless. Your client hired you to tell them just such a thing. Just tell them something like this;

The A/C has reached the end of its' useful service life, and is showing the effects of time and use. Servicing it would be a patch. It is not likely to last much longer. It should be replaced.

 "it did not function well with a 7° Delta T" (since they have no idea what this means, and they ARE the client, just say the temperature differential between the return and supply air was 7 degrees F and it should be between 14 and 20 degrees F) 

The unit probably needs refrigerant but that also means it has a leak (If you haven't found a leak or checked the refrigerant level, why say this? It is also a clumsy sentence that does not give your client much useful information).

"What wording will work for one client will not work for another"

If it is well written, it will work for everyone who can read.

"So did I sugar coat the issue"?

IMO, yes, you did.

I just don't see it as that complicated. You know the unit is shot, just say it is shot.

Now, let me be clear. I am not implying that the inspector quoted is either a bad inspector or a bad person. I think it is more likely that he is playing the game by what he thinks are the rules. He is taking his referral source into consideration when he reports his findings. When an inspector does this, can he truly claim to be independent?

The A/C has reached the end of its' useful service life, and is showing the effects of time and use. Servicing it would be a patch. It is not likely to last much longer. It should be replaced.

While I'm not claiming that my description above is perfect, I do feel that it directly, simply and accurately explains the situation with the A/C and what to do about it. I do not consider it to overstate the situation (which I presume is the premise for describing something or someone as alarmist). Why would an inspector hesitate to accurately describe such a condition? Does the description "functional but needing service", tell the whole story, or is it intentional, non-alarmist inspectorspeak? And most importantly, does such a description best serve the client, or the referral source?

Another well worn piece of code is ‘fair to the house'. This is usually applied to an inspector who, despite the property in question being a, shall we say, ‘rehab project', finds some positive comments to make. The problems with this are simple: The buyer already likes something about the property if they have commissioned an inspection. The sellers' agent has already pointed out the positive aspects of the home (and they are better at it than a home inspector is). And most importantly, that is not what the inspector was hired to do.

It is important that home inspectors and Realtors understand that the inspector is not a part of the sales team. The home inspector is not a stakeholder in the transaction. The home inspector is an independent expert source of information for the prospective buyer. For the inspector to truly be ‘independent' he can not consider, not for one moment, if his findings and the accurate reporting of his findings are going to affect the stakeholders in any way shape or form. This arrangement is best for everyone involved. For the inspector, he can maintain his integrity and the integrity of the profession. For the realtor, it reduces liability, boosts credibility and increases customer loyalty. And most importantly, the client gets what they paid for. An honest, competent job performed by their inspector working with their best interests in mind. An inspector who could care less if the deal goes down.