We have no state licensing of home inspectors.

I'm sure that you would agree that a state that has no minimum basic standards for constructing a home and who does not license builders, general contractors, electricians, plumbers, or hvac technicians --- would be wasting its time trying to license home inspectors.  There would be no consumer benefit at all.

In addition to the illogical consideration of licensing the inspector INSTEAD of the builder and contractor is the lack of a demonstrated need.  The total number of complaints that have been compiled in the entire State of Missouri by the Better Business Bureau and the Consumer Complaint Division of the Missouri Attorney General for the last five years is five complaints against home inspectors (compared to several thousands of complaints filed against unlicensed contractors).

While home inspectors in Missouri do not oppose licensing strictly to oppose licensing, we would first expect to see our state establish a basic minimum standard or code by which builders and contractors would work by...and for inspectors to inspect that work in accordance with the same standard.  Secondly, we would like to see a demonstrated need.

Home inspecting is controversial, in my opinion, because it requires a combination of high levels of skill in two very different areas.

First, one must be totally educated regarding a home and its systems in order to be able to determine when a material defect actually exists.  Second, we must be skilled in communicating (verbally and in writing) the practical implications of these defects.

IMO, none of us ever reach the level where we cannot improve in some regard in one or both of these areas.

Dale,

You have asked some very good questions.

At various times, state legislators have proposed and presented bills that would institute statewide building codes and statewide licensure of builders and their contractors but heavily funded lobbyists have worked to kill these measures.

Large metropolitan areas with the tax base to support the enforcement of them have implemented building codes and I am afraid that very few of our neighbors from Kansas City or St. Louis who visit us in the Ozarks are aware that the motels and cabins they rent have been amateurishly wired without ever having been inspected.  In areas of Missouri without building codes, electrical fires destroy families, lives and property on a monthly basis.  Most recently, nearby Anderson, MO, had an electrical fire that killed 10 residents in a nursing home.

Still, we have no codes or enforcement and many times the very first time that anyone has ever inspected a home in any of these areas is a home inspector for a real estate transaction.

Many agree with your point as to how nonsensical it seems to allow private residential and commercial structures to be built and maintained with no minimum basic standards by unregulated/unlicensed builders and contractors while suggesting that, somehow, the inspector who comes along much later should somehow be licensed instead.  That is why we remain unregulated and will remain so, in my opinion, until the state establishes a minimum basic standard by which one would inspect...as well as build.

Until such time as that, and there has been set forth a demonstrated need, there is little credibility to be found in the efforts to license home inspectors in Missouri.

But with all that said, licensing is not the topic here so I will save my rhetoric for another thread.

Linda,

Believe me when I tell you that we take our responsibilities to all parties to the sale very, very seriously.

I learned from the pros to have my client present during the inspection for a variety of reasons. 

First, I want him to understand what an inspection is and what it isn't.  He needs to understand before I begin that I am not warrantying the home from future problems, that the seller does not have to repair or replace every item I identify to be defective, and that every defect is not a reason to reconsider price or purchase.  I don't turn on my flashlight until we all agree to these points.

Second, by having him present during the inspection he has an opportunity to ask me as many questions as he feels is necessary regarding the defects that I uncover.  We don't go home until his questions regarding the defects are answered...at least to the extent that they can be at the stage of discovery.  He is not left to his imagination or his own devices.

When we do this, the report contains nothing to shock or surprise anyone who was present during the inspection.  Decisions are made on rational responses to information instead of reactions to misinterpreted words or pictures.

Very good points, Russell.

First, as to your general question "What is the best way to handle and inspector that has done something completely outside the box that in turn upsets or worries a buyer?", I have a couple of responses. 

In preparation for the inspection, a professional home inspector will ensure that the buyer understands what his inspection will entail, that the inspection is not a warranty of reported items, that the seller does not have to repair or replace any or all of the defects that are found, and that not everything found is a reason to reconsider price or purchase.

Not all states...even licensed states...have standards of practice.  All national home inspection associations do. 

If your inspector is a member of a national association, his standard of practice (what his inspection entails...and what it does not) is published and is a matter for record.  His contract with the client will (or should) state what standard of practice he is inspecting under. 

So...prior to beginning the inspection...the inspector and his client have pre-established what is and what is not "outside of the box".  What he will cover during his inspection has been made a part of his contractual agreement with the buyer.

What is in the box and what is not has been defined, at this point.  He will be providing his professional opinion as to the condition of those systems that are covered under the agreed upon standard of practice.

Now, if the result of that inspection "upsets or worries the buyer" this is not within his control.  He must report what he finds and can get himself in a lot of trouble if he intentionally conceals or understates the conditions that he observes.  Unfortunately for both of us, some less than professional inspectors will actually do this out of fear of losing future referrals from a realtor which puts himself and the realtor who referred him at risk.  No one is served by such an inspection...the buyer, the realtor or the inspector.

Professional inspectors will take the time during the inspection, when the buyer is present (which should be all the time, if possible) to fully explain what they see and answer every question that the client may have regarding it.  This will usually keep buyers from jumping to conclusions or becoming overly upset and fearful regarding minor issues.

As to the specific incident that you cited regarding the HVAC unit, I would have to know the age and type of system that you are referring to in order to answer your specific question.  Older heating systems that are gas operated will condition heated air by warming it in a heat exchanger that (after many seasons of expanding and contracting) can form cracks that could distribute carbon monoxide throughout the home.  When these furnaces begin to reach their maximum points of useful life, prudent inspectors will recommend (not demand!) that the systems be checked annually to ensure its safety as well as working condition.  If carbon monoxide detectors are not already in place, they will be urged as well.

I do not know if these were the conditions at the home you were selling, but these are the circumstances where most inspectors will recommend a "whole system" type service without finding any specific defect.

I apologize for this lengthy response.  I'll summarize it by saying that your inspector's inspections should be governed by a standard of practice that the buyer (and his agent) should have access to and understand what is and what is not "outside of the box".  Inspectors are required to provide factual, unbiased and complete descriptions of what they observe under that standard of practice.

Thank you for your contributions, gentlemen, but this is not another of many unendable arguments over who runs the best home inspection association.

All national home inspection associations require that their members adhere to a standard of practice, a code of ethics and require continuing education.  For those reasons, in the absence of personal referral or observation, the odds of a better report are increased when hiring a member of such associations than one who adheres to no other standards but his own.

As to which of these associations have the best inspectors...the argument is moot in that most of the inspectors who belong to any one of them usually belongs to several of them. 

Since there is no end to the debate as to which national association attracts the best inspector, I will end it here by promising to delete any additional off-topic posts that refer to it.  This thread is "7 Ways to Use a Home Inspection Report".  Thanks.

I am not a realtor so forgive me for venturing into an area where I have no first hand knowledge - but - I think that if I were representing a seller, I would let him know at the time he was completing his disclosure form that any items that he fails to list that are subsequently revealed by a home inspector could result in the buyer's decision to exercise his right to renegotiate his contract - to include the purchase price.  Then when it happens, I would remind him of our previous conversation as we discussed the buyer's offer. 

I have always found over the years that the majority of sellers are very honest and well intentioned people and will be genuinely surprised over discovering issues that exist in an attic where they never ventured, or a nook/cranny of a crawlspace that reveals something bad.  But then, in rare cases, there is the seller who thinks they can hide the stains from a roof leak with a gallon of Kilz...and forgets to paint the nearby stained closet ceiling that gives it away.  In both cases, both sellers should understand that the offer made on the home was made in good faith based upon the information that the seller, himself, provided.  When that information proves to be incorrect, it is grossly unfair for them to ask a price that does not take these defects into account in any way.  Would you agree?

Again, buyers must be prepared by their inspectors (so as to better understand the scope of the inspection) that a seller does not have to repair defects or adjust the selling price...but sellers need to be prepared to expect that their undisclosed defects could affect the outcome when their house comes under contract.  Preparing them for that as they prepare the disclosure, IMO, would be the best time to do it.

Thank you for sharing, Al.