How Important is the Report?

I kind of like the napkin idea if I could find a pen that wouldn't leak through.  Seriously, you hit the nail on the head.  You have to be able to convey the many technical aspects of the inspection to people that have no idea what your talking about.  No slam on homeowners, it's not their job to know all this, its ours.  Hopefully, the inspector is also a patient and good teacher, no matter what report media they use.

Hey James - sorry I'm late to this post.  Just found the site...!

I think home inspections break down like this - 30% construction knowledge, 30% ability to communicate with the client about the house and its conditions, 30% quality of the report and 10% people skills.  I still see some really lousy reports floating about, some of which my clients send to me asking to interpret or decipher the writing.  If the clients can't interpret the report for themselves, how much good can it do them!?

James, I agree that all the elements Jay mentioned are pertinent, but maybe not in the same proportions. The important thing to remember is that whatever means you use, it should be ever so clear to the clients what you are showing/explaining to them. Although I always tell every client that they can call me at any time and I will be glad to review the report findings with them, or explain anything that they might not understand, I very rarely have anyone take me up on it. I guess I attribute that to the attention I give to clarity and simplicity in my report writing.

Hi Kevin - I have thought about those proportions above over the years.  I really don't know which is the more important, but communication is always the most relevant.  The report communicates certainly, but so do we during the inspection.  Our knowledge is communicating mucho to the client.  But, it doesn't matter how much knowledge we have, or continuing education hours, or how well we explain things during the inspection.  We hit the clients with tons of info that is every day stuff to you and me, but to them it can be information overload.  THAT is why the report is so important.  They refer to that later, maybe for years.

I also tell clients to call me any time!  Realtors are fond of telling their clients that I do that before I have a chance to say it.  I want to be something of a consultant post inspection and have actually had clients call me years later for guidance on projects and renovations.  And I get lots of calls!  I get lots of call backs years later too, when they buy their next house.  And if I didn't get those calls, or call backs, well, that's communication too, isn't it?

I think pictures are very helpful but they certainly do not need to put in the report, ALL the pictures.  These reports can get really big!

Well if your state has a home inspector licensing law, and the regulations include report requirements, then you can find out exactly how important the report is by reading about disciplinary actions and insurance claims. Reading the above comments, I also feel that client communications is valued as the most important item. If the client can understand you and the benefits of your service, then they don't care if your report meets state requirements or not. Just for fun, I like to read sample reports from home inspector web sites. Yes, I realize these are sample reports and not client reports. However, I find it very interesting that the sample reports I have reviewed are missing a significant amount of state required items. Would you be surprised that a very nice looking 50+ page report omitted 63% of the state required items? The report was well written, included photos, and also contained many items not required by the state. I would bet that the client receiving that report would not complain at the omissions as long as they felt the inspector told them everything they needed to know. -Jim-

Hi James, I think you got my point.  Of course my comments are presumptious since they are my opinion of my general experiences and no specific set of facts or circumstances for any one report.  As my presumptive comments show, generalizations do not cover all circumstances.

I applaud the home inspector that continuously gives their best effort on the inspection and continues to learn as business conditions allow. 

I feel that Standard of Practice (State or Professional Organization) are excellent guide lines and not empirical measurements.  Each inspection and report should be evaluated on a case by case basis.  For example; when an area/system of the home has a majority content of defects/problems is it appropriate to move on with the inspection or stay with that area and look for more details?  Say the inspector has shown the client that the plumbing drain, waste, vent system is deficient with numerous leaks.  Based upon what is visible it is likely that there is additional concealed damage.  Engage the services of the appropriate licensed professionals (plumbers, general contractor, etc) to determine the scope of the problem and estimate of repair costs.  Is it a poor job if the report didn't specify that one of the support hangers for the DWV pipes was disconnected?  In this instance I think not.  However if the DWV does not have a majority of defects/problems then it is more important to inform the client of the inadquate pipe support that may allow excessive stress on the pipe joints and lead to a premature leak. 

I feel that the home inspector has been overly scrutinized and to the point where the consumer expectations of a home inspector are often unrealistic.

A home inspection report that meets State or Professional Organization Standards of Practice minimum requirements is not a measurement or certification that the house is free of defects or problems.  A report that does not meet the minimum requirements is just that, it meets the requirements.   A report that does not meet the requirements needs a case by case analysis to understand why it does not meet the requirements.

I agree a rule is a rule.  My next remark is not directed toward you or any other individual CT inspector, nor should be read as a negative remark.  In CT one of the rules is  "The inspector shall report on those systems and components inspected which, in the professional opinion of the inspector, are significantly deficient or are near the end of their service lives."  I have read through 328 pages of sample reports on CT home inspector web pages and have only encountered the usage of the defined term "significantly deficient" once.  The same pages have used the term "repair" 345 times.  Based upon this limited observation, I wouldn't say that any of these inspectors has done a "poor job".

Just an example where I feel the rule is being used as a guideline and the inspectors feel that the clients understand the term "repair" better than the term "significantly deficient".

 

Hi James, I also feel that you have some valid points and as you already mentioned some I do not completely agree.  I'm glad you've taken the time to elaborate.

I will defer to your expertise with the usage of CT defined inspection terms.  However, from the outside looking in, I read "significantly deficient" as being very different than "repair or replace".

Without getting specific or quoting any SOP, here is how I generally interpret the SOP; The inspector provides a written opinion of whether or not the item/component/system to be inspected is significantly deficicient or not.

An inspector recommendation to repair or replace does not have the same meaning to me.

I feel the former is an "awareness" or a condition rating and the latter is a "solution" or a course of action.

It seems that we have switched positions when it comes to terminology.  I feel that the defined terms need to be used whenever they apply in a home inspection report.  On the communication point I feel that the inspector should have more discretion to write about the relevant components or items to communicate the condition to the client, and not so much be held to each exact item. 

 

Hi James. I think the direction just changed.  I did not provide a definition for repair and replace.  That is one of my points, the terms repair and replace are not defined.  The term significantly deficient is defined.  My point was and is that defined terms should be used over undefined terms whenever possible.

Maybe using an example will better describe my point.

Lets use the DWV plumbing system again.  Lets say the SOP lists pipe materials and all fixtures.  Case 1 is where the system has enough problems to consider the entire DWV system as a problem/defect.  In this case I feel its OK for the inspector to write the DWV system is signifcantly deficient as long as there is a reasonable description of enough of the deficiencies to consider the system significantly deficient.  If the inspector does not include all fixtures in the problem description, then I do not see the problem with the report.   Case 2 is where the system does not have enough problems to consider the entire DWV system as significantly deficient.  In this case the inspector must list all the fixtures in the report with a designation of whether or not the fixture is significantly deficient.

In either case above, the condition needs to be in the report.  Significantly Deficient or Not Significantly Deficient.  The recommended action of the undefined terms repair and replace do not seem to convey the intent of the SOP.  Repair or Not Repair / Replace or Not Replace.  If the recommended action is included in addition to the condition rating, then I feel it enhances the report.  However I feel that recommended action is not a replacement for a condition rating.

1. The DWV cast iron pipes are significantly deficient as evident by the extensive amount of rust on the pipes and are at the end of their service life. They appear to be the original pipes, the house is xx years old and cast iron pipes have a typical service life of yy years.

2. The DWV cast iron pipes are rusty and recommended to be replaced or repaired.

3. The DWV cast iron pipes are significantly deficient as evident by the extensive amount of rust on the pipes and are at the end of their service life.  They appear to be the original pipes, the house is xx years old and the cast iron pipes have a typical service life of yy years.  I recommend they be replaced now before a leak occurs which may cause additional damage.

I feel that numbers 1 and 3 meet the SOP requirements and the number 2 does not.  Neither 1, 2, or 3 address all the fixtures.  I still feel the SOP requirement is by the implied understanding of deficient pipes that the fixture connected to those pipes are also significantly deficient or at least more expensive to salvage an old fixture than to replace it with a new one.

Thanks for the reference to another home inspection report posting!  Depsite are disagreements, I have enjoyed reading your comments.

I think I'll start a new post on defined terms and see if there is any interest from other inspectors.

 

Man, I would sure hate to be saddled with "significantly deficient":)  Why not just describe exactly what is going on, what to do about it, and by whom?

 

Observe and report.