Inspectors on the Roof
Posted on August 1st, 2007 by Jonathan Dalton
Given most ceramic-tile roof warranties are void as soon as someone steps foot on the roof, what would make a home inspector feel the need to walk a ceramic tile roof?
Tradition! … Tradition!
My apologies but my daughter has Fiddler on the Roof playing in the other room right now. But inspectors walking on ceramic tile roofs does leave their clients’ position as tenuous as … as … as a Fiddler on the … er, never mind.
Some will argue that with proper training and sufficient knowledge, inspectors can walk on ceramic tile roofs without causing any damage. But as a listing agent protecting the best interests of my seller, such assurances carry little weight if we’re notified of broken tiles on the roof - particularly on the crowns where the inspectors most likely are walking.
We can’t prove that the inspector caused any damage. But the buyer usually can’t prove that their inspector did not cause any damage. Unless …
(dramatic pause)
… the inspector never walked the roof.
With the use of optics and the like, a home inspector easily can inspect an entire roof from the relative comfort of his ladder without ever having to step foot on the roof. A cracked tile looks the same from a few feet away through an optic device as it does from the top of the roof. And, in reality, there’s usually only an issue if there’s accompanying evidence of a leak in the roof - evidence found in the attic.
When interviewing home inspectors for your real estate purchase, make sure to ask if they walk ceramic tile roofs. If they do, keep in mind that you may be facing a battle when asking for any repairs, assuming the listing agent knows what they’re doing.
If you’d like the name of a good inspector who doesn’t walk the roof, let me know and I can pass along a couple.
Technorati Tags: home inspections, Phoenix real estate
Popularity: 5% [?]
If a home inspector does not know how to walk on a tile roof to conduct their inspection without causing damage there’s more than just tiles to look at, then buyers should not hire such a person. There are plenty of qualified real estate inspectors who can walk tile roofs as well as the professional roofers and any agent worth his/her salt should be able to locate and recommend them. It always amazes me how little most agents understand what well traineed and seasoned professional real estate inspectors are capable of?
Jerry
I’d like to think I’m worth my salt, Jerry. And I understand what a trained and seasoned professional real estate inspector is capable of doing.
But given the choice between an inspector who walks the roof and one who doesn’t, I’d take the one who doesn’t walk the roof anytime. Unless they’re taking before and after pictures that prove they didn’t crack any of the tiles themselves.
So to me it’s not question of whether they know how but whether I want them up there.
I am a home inspector that walks on all tile roofs, in fact it is a disservice to the client not to do so. Think about it, every tile roof is installed by someone who had to walk on it to install the material. It is my experience that over 90% of the tile roofs that I inspect have installation defects that would cost the buyer or seller from $600 to $1200 on average to repair. I am factory trained by the worlds largest tile roofing manufacturer and also hold a Tile Roofing Institute Installer Certificate. I have taught classes on Tile Roof inspecting (which includes how to walk on roofs without damaging the material) to over 600 home inspectors. No one is ever taught to walk on the crown and the correct word is “Ridge Tile”, one only walks on the Field Tile and only on the head lap of the tile. I am Certified to teach by the Tile Roofing Institute. Every professional home inspector should have Errors and Omission Insurance and General Liability Insurance to cover any damage or injury to the client or the property. Improper head lap, flashing details, damaged weather channels, missing/improper weather blocking and ridge tiles not properly secured and sealed can not be seen from a ladder and only from the roof. As some one who does litigation consulting and Expert Witness work you are placing yourself in a negligent referral position by recommending an inspector that does not completely inspect a tile roof. And the only way to inspect it is on the roof. Visit my web site at www.qpi-inspect.com and view our inspector resume’s. We also have a page dedicated to Tile Roof Inspections and Litigation Consulting.
To suggest that an inspector only look at a tile roof from the ladder is to give advice that all inspectors should limit there inspections to what they can see from standing in the middle of the room. As Mike states above, there is way too many concerns that cannot be seen without walking the surface. Sure there are times when it may be hazardous due to either the steepness, or a number of visibly loose tiles. As an inspector with many years experience, my clients expect me to inspect anything and everything. Do you also recommend that the Roofer not walk the surface to make the repair at the ridge? I charge a higher that average fee to provide a quality report and just so you know, I work more for the seller and on high end homes in one of the most expensive counties in the country. Your giving out misguided information that does little for your creditability with clients whether buyers or sellers. Hire the trained person that provides the information required to make an educated decision!
Good stuff, Mike … with your background, I’d have little issue with you walking the roof. I can’t say the same for everyone.
And I’ve had inspectors who will make as passionate argument against walking the roof.
I’m not going to argue right vs. wrong as there are arguments on both sides. I’m looking at things from the position of negotiating repairs.
I am a property inspector with over 10 years experience and I walk tile roofs. You talk as if cracked tiles are the major potential defect in a tile roof installation. Cracked tiles are a defect that even a real estate agent should be able to spot. One hardly needs a highly qualified individual for that. It ain’t rocket science.
The most common and most serious problem with tile roof installations is improper flashing installation. Many of the problems will not manifest for years until the concealed water damage results in costly structural damage for your clients that could have been avoided if a competent inspector had actually walked on the roof. Mike make salient points. One only need to know how to walk on a roof in order to do so without breaking tiles.
If your inspectors are breaking tiles Jonathan, you need better inspectors. Of course the best answer is for the client to bypass agents’ recommendations when selecting an inspector and avoid the potential conflict of interest an agent has in referring an inspector. Placing concerns about cracking tiles and advocating that an inferior roof inspection be performed in lieu of such does not properly service one’s client. Might I suggest that if determining whether or not tiles are cracked is so easy from the ground, that a prudent agent take his/her own photos to document the condition of the roof prior to the inspection. In my opinion that would render a far superior service for one’s client than advocating an inferior roof inspection.
You need to walk on tiles to install and to repair. I make sure that my client understands the importance of retaining a qualified tile roofing contractor to take responsibility for the entire roof. The “blame” game stops with this person. Since you can break tiles enroute to fixing tiles, it is essential that this is understood by all in the transaction. Tiles can not only be broken by an inspector, but also by a painter, window washer, chimney expert, termite tenter, etc. The smart money is on folks that understand the nature of the business and coordinate accordingly.
Jeff and Steve - I don’t believe it’s misguided information and I don’t believe a buyer absolutely is receiving an inferior inspection if the inspector isn’t on the roof.
It’s a matter of preference and a matter of leverage when negotiating. And in reality I usually give folks a choice of inspector.
Steve, I never said the inspectors conclusively were breaking tiles. I also never said cracked tiles were the big issue with roofs - I know that they aren’t, though it’s clear from the repair battles I have had to fight with other agents not all do.
Saw this language on a recent report:
“The roofs are not walked on but are viewed from the eaves, windows and the ground when possible. These precautions are taken so not to damage the roof tiles and for inspector safety.”
Is the group condemning all inspections conducted by this company as inferior? Is the subjective world of home inspections that black and white when it comes to roofing?
Here’s a question for all … in your inspection reports, do you write that these roof repairs need to be done or do you write that the issue whatever it may be ought to be reviewed by a licensed et al roofing contractor?
I never tell anyone to do anything. My recommendations are typically for review by a specialist, in this case a roofer. Hopefully one better than the one who screwed it up in the first place. The object of a good inspection report is to provide the client with enough information to make an educated decision as to how they want to proceed. Objectivity is the watchword.
Here is part of my concern with you giving this type of information out. As the agent involved in the transaction, it is beyond your scope to advise a client as to what or how an inspection should be performed. I believe that in your state the inspector is licensed and required to report within the state required confines. So the question would be what should the agent be doing where Inspections are concerned. Give the client a long list of inspectors in your area and advise the client to intervue each person extensively. You the agent should be keeping a long arms distance from recommending inspectors or telling clients what they (the inspector) should or should not be inspecting. Well qualified and experienced inspectors such as those found at www.ASHI.org will do more for your reputation than being concerned on whether we walk the tile roof. Most of us know how to walk these, document/photo the roof both prior to and after access and will give your client the proper recommendations for what we see.
Jonathan,
The verbiage is appropriate if the roof is difficult to access, but it should not be used carte-blanche.Our job is to write a report that describes conditions, provides the client proper direction and defers to the appropriate specialist for repair.
What if I were to tell you that 85% of tiled roofs are installed improperly? How would one see all of the defects if they cannot walk the roof. Clients, whether they are buyers or sellers should be looking for the most qualified inspector to perform the inspection. Not the cheapest. Our profession has come a long way and many of us are more qualified in rendering our opinions because of the experience, continuous education and knowledge gained. An inspector that does not walk the roof when conditions allow is not educated with the experience and knowledge on how to tranverse the roof without damage. An inspector that breaks tiles when walking is not familiar with the installation to prevent breakage. If the inspector breaks tiles, you hired the wrong inspector.
If you really want to protect the interests of your client, have an inspection performed up front then the roof does not have to become a negotitiated issue and repairs can be performed with a one year warranty provided by the roofing contractor before the buyer even enters into the picture. Now the roof with a warranty on repairs becomes an asset as opposed to a liability and the buck stops with the contractor.
Find an experienced inspector that writes a easy to read, well formatted report, not one filled with only boiler plate comments on why he couldn’t do a job that another prudent home inspector would do. That is where the liability is. Your suggession of writing a disclaimer may indeed cause more liability risk for you or the seller that the risk of some broken tiles may. An inspector should always perform an inspection with the intent that another inspector will be following him. That means go up on the roof, go to the farthest area of the crawlspace, open up the electical panels and walk the attic, because if they don’t I will. Thats what we get paid for and what our clients expect. Remember our clients are the buyers and sellers and not the agents.
Jonathan, one might think from some of the overtones of the thread that the role of a property inspector is to make a real estate agent’s job easier. The fact that property inspectors have relied on real estate agents as their source of referrals is a well documented fact. The fact that many inspectors inspect and report to appease the agents is a well documented fact. Reports that contain a lot of boilerplate, specialize in non-alarming comments and that utilize agent appeasing verbiage such as common, minor, typical and insignificant should be an automatic red flag that says “this inspector believes that his primary function is to help the referring agent close the deal, regardless of what he discovers in his inspection.”
The day of the toadie inspector, beholden to agents for his referrals is coming to a close. Today’s trend features an increasing number of clients finding their own inspectors, inspectors that are professional enough to truly serve the best interest of their clients in providing thorough disclosure of the condition of the property, regardless of how it affects the outcome of the deal. Additionally, the role of a property inspector is not to aid negotiation. It is to disclose the condition of the property.
Tile roof walking is not difficult for a properly trained inspector. Recommending a less than thorough inspection of such an expensive component of the home, in order to make your job easier is, in my opinion, not protecting your sellers’ risk liability. Buyers that accept an inferior level of service through agents’ advice are also at risk.
It would seem to me that if you are having problems with inspectors breaking roof tiles and if it is so easy to use modern technology to perform a thorough inspection from the ground, said technology should be more than reliable enough to allow you to work in your clients’ best interest and document the before and after broken concrete roof tiles yourself. This seems a far better alternative to an inferior inspection. As Steve Rush suggested maybe the best thing is to have a property inspection, or at least a qualified roof inspection performed prior to entering into contract?
Steve Rush makes excellent points. He is one of the premier inspectors in the country and you may have seen him on the TV program “The House Detective”. Over 90% of Steve’s inspection work is presale listing inspections for sellers. His through professional inspections supplement the required disclosures the seller and agents must make to future buyers. All of the warts and pimples the home may have are discovered and disclosed. This gives the seller and the listing agent an opportunity to correct those defects or to disclose them and adjust the selling price. There are no unpleasant surprises that a future buyers inspector may discover that may cause the buyer to demand a price reduction or worse yet just walk away from the transaction. In Steve’s area he is looked upon as a deal maker, not a deal killer and is a valuable player sought out by the most successful listing agents and is always booked several weeks out. If you are an agent and you want your listing sold quickly, with full disclosure and at top price Steve is the “GO TO GUY”.
Two things I want to clarify since they’ve been missed the first six times I’ve said it …
1) I’ve not had an issue with inspectors my clients have hired breaking roof tiles. End of story. I wrote this from the position of someone who has to negotiate repair requests for his clients.
2) Pre-listing inspections are a great idea as long as the seller is willing to repair what was found. If they aren’t, they often find themselves having to disclose items of which they previously had no knowledge on their Sellers Property Disclosure Statement.
Also, Mike, buyers contractually cannot “demand a price reduction.” While it’s not uncommon to see negotiation of a repair credit, there’s nothing in the contract that allows for it. The buyer has the option of accepting the house, allowing the seller to rectify “disapproved items” or canceling the contract.
Inspectors as “toadies” of the agent. Interesting. Sounds a lot like what appraisers often say as well. Thank goodness we have independent-minded folks who are able to resist the mind-bending powers of a real-estate agent.
Jonathan
In all due respect it appears you have entirely missed the point of what a pre-listing inspection accomplishes besides professional inspectors walking on tile roofs in order to produce an evaluation of existing conditions that not only provides their client’s knowledge of what they’re buying, but truly helps protect both the seller and those that legally represent them from future potential litigation.
There is no real estate law that;
1. Requires a seller the fix anything. This has always been a negotiable area between buyers and sellers.
2. Any defect that affects the value, habitability, desirability, or safety of a residential dwelling discovered during the course of a professionally performed inspection must be disclosed by real estate law.
Your statement; “Pre-listing inspections are a great idea as long as the seller is willing to repair what was found. If they aren’t, they often find themselves having to disclose items of which they previously had no knowledge on their Sellers Property Disclosure Statement.” Indicates to me that you appear not to grasp the idea that even if a seller does not disclose a defect they where not aware of that a real estate inspector later turned up the seller may face litigation should the buyer discover what was not disclosed before the close of escrow. For the seller to try and prove they where unaware of such a defect more times than not gets legally sticky and I’m sure as a listing agent you don’t want to be part of a messy law suit because as you well know the listing agent will be almost always be named as a defendant in any type of disclosure litigation. It’s all part of the inevitable search for “deep pockets” by our legal profession.
The bottom line is if all defects either known by the seller or discovered by the inspector performing a pre-listing inspection removes the bargaining chips for possible reduction of the listed sales price. In other words, here is our home, you know what you like or you wouldn’t want to buy it, here’s what’s wrong with it and we have adjusted the sales price accordingly. As both a state licensed real estate agent and builder from the 50s and a professional real estate inspector from the mid 80s until late 90s and now a full time construction consultant who performs expert witness work in construction defects and home inspector litigation I call this a combination of smart marketing and risk management. Jonathan, it would behoove you to seriously listen to what I consider some very sage advice from Mike, Jeff, and both Steves.
Jerry
Jonathan,
I am not here to bash and neither are the other inspectors. We are however, a bit tired of the agents telling us how we should do our jobs, just because they have referred us. As I have stated previously it is the buyers or sellers that are our clients. When we placate or humble down our reporting for the sake of the agents, we actually create more liability risk.
Agents do not spend enough time on risk management. Its all about the sale, period. God forbid us reporting defects that effect the sale. We then become the scapegoats. Its our fault on how we reported the condition. It is no fun being the pawn in a real estate transaction. The inspectors should not be treated as puppets and the agents should not be the puppet masters. Please look at it from our point of view and not from a jaded perspective.
If you are paying for repairs on the roof, have you thought it might be when you are having the inspections performed and when the roof is being inspected. Why is it an inspectors issue and not an agent issue for recommending the wrong inspector?
Concerning item # 2:Your comment sounds like it comes from either inexperience or ignorance. Disclosure is rule number one in prevention of law suits and makes success of top producing agents. If something is found during the listing inspection process, the seller can fix it or simply disclose. Whats wrong with finding out about an issue before the buyer has their inspection? Do you think its better to be surprised by the buyers inspection, then having to renegotiate on a material defect that is discovered and becomes required to be repaired under contract? Do you think “as is” is a way to bury everyones head in the sand and everything goes away? “As is” means as disclosed, not warranted. It does not give the seller the right to hide from disclosure requirements. Up front disclosure is paramount in getting the house sold quicker and prevention of future lawsuits. When one person gets named, we all get named. Why not make the target on all of our backs a little smaller?
Try getting the inspections up front. What better way to determine a sale price knowing what the conditions of the house are, allow the seller to make repairs on the items that may affect the sale or have repair estimates provided that are by the seller and not the buyer. Also the seller is now in control of the repairs, not the buyer. The seller can perform the repairs, if he is capable, instead of a contractor requirement when there is a purchase contract involved. The replacement does not have to be like for like material, saving the seller monies but not necessarily lowering the value of the house.
Buyers remorse goes away because they are informed of conditions prior to making the offer and not surprised. There is more of a trust factor between buyer and seller. You also become a hero because the house sells faster without complications.
Most importantly, the inspector becomes a part of a team approach as opposed to a buyers advocate used for negotiating.
I am sorry for the long tread, but agents such as yourself need education on how to use inspectors in a manner that benefits all, not just the buyer.
Your thread on breakage of roof tile created a perfect segue into how there is devision between agents and inspectors and the lack of knowledge about our roles in a transaction and proper disclosure.
“2) Pre-listing inspections are a great idea as long as the seller is willing to repair what was found. If they aren’t, they often find themselves having to disclose items of which they previously had no knowledge on their Sellers Property Disclosure Statement.”
If I understand you Jonathan, you believe we still live in a world where the attitude affecting the sale of real property is “caveat emptor, buyer beware?” If the defect or sub-standard condition exists, does it disappear because the seller pleads ignorance? Does it, for this reason, have less impact on the buyer?
As a property inspector my mantra is “We disclose, so everyone knows.” This protects everyone, the buyer’s interests, the seller’s legal behind, and yes, even yours. What happens to the seller, and you as well, if an undisclosed condition is discovered by the buyer’s inspector and the resulting negotiation causes the deal to fall through. In this case, have you truly and properly represented your seller in the transaction, working in their best interest? Or worse yet what happens if the buyer discovers said condition 6 months after taking possession of the house? Does a plead of ignorance earn a get of litigation “free card” for the seller? What should a reasonably competent agent do? Advise their client to provide the most thorough disclosure they can? Or stick their head in the sand?
Jerry, I haven’t missed the point about what a pre-inspection can accomplish. And by adding the line about tile roofs in their, it shows you’re not actually ready what I am writing. What I’m saying is it’s not always to the seller’s benefit. That’s the side of things you don’t deal have to deal with.
But let’s say you conduct a pre-inspection and the seller fixes everything in the report. Home goes into escrow the next day. Buyer has their own inspector out two days later and additional items are found. Are you taking responsibility for these other items that you “should” have found when you inspected the home?
We all know two inspectors can inspect the same home on the same day and issue different reports. One local TV station proved it a year or so ago.
> What happens to the seller, and you as well, if an undisclosed condition is discovered by the buyer’s inspector and the resulting negotiation causes the deal to fall through.
If it was a condition that the seller wasn’t willing to correct before the home went on the market, Steve, then wouldn’t we end up at the same point either way - except the seller then possibly would have to disclose something of which they did not have knowledge at the outset.
> What should a reasonably competent agent do? Advise their client to provide the most thorough disclosure they can? Or stick their head in the sand?
I always advise my clients to provide the most thorough disclosure they can. I even hand them the top page of the SPDS, which tells them when in doubt, disclose. But I also wouldn’t advise a client who is unaware of any issues to proactively go find some.
> Or worse yet what happens if the buyer discovers said condition 6 months after taking possession of the house? Does a plead of ignorance earn a get of litigation “free card” for the seller?
Why would the buyer need to discover something in six months when their home inspector should have discovered the issue during the post-contract inspection?
> I am sorry for the long tread, but agents such as yourself need education on how to use inspectors in a manner that benefits all, not just the buyer.
I’m all for education. Frankly, though, education is a two-way street. Many inspectors don’t know what happens on the negotiation side, as proven by the statement above about buyers demanding price reductions. Contractually, they can’t. I know this because I’m a licensed real estate agent.
Over and over I’ve read that since I’m not a home inspector I don’t understand the full scope of the issue and shouldn’t tell an inspector how to do his or her job. Yet over and over again, there’s been quite a few folks who feel the need to tell me how to do mine even though they aren’t licensed agents and haven’t been in a negotiation outside of their own premises.
Pick one but don’t argue expertise in both home inspection and real estate negotiation.
I’ve never told an inspector how they need to conduct their work. I wouldn’t expect an inspector to tell me how to do my job.
A number of us are agents. Believe me when I say that there are an equal percentage of agents and home inspectors who are not competent.
Jonathan
Believe me when I say I know what your argument is about as I’ve heard it many times and it doesn’t hold water. To wit; a defect discovered by the buyer and/or buyer’s inspector will result in the seller’s inspector being held legally responsible should the defect be discovered after the close of escrow. However, if the defect has been missed by the seller’s inspector and later discovered by the buyer’s inspector before the close of escrow the seller’s inspector is off the hook and will only have a 6 egg omelet on their face. It’s only after the close of escrow that an unreported defect that existed before the close of escrow is discovered that the buyer may resort to litigation against the seller’s inspector, their own inspector and of course the seller and any agent representing them.
Oh but I will argue my point as I’ve been on both sides of the fence and now sit in neutral territory. I’ve no horse in this race, but over 55 years experience in real estate sales and the disclosure laws associated with it. Please remember it was California’s infamous Easton vs Strassburger case in 1984 that triggered this whole seller’s disclosure deal.
Jerry
I’m not an attorney, Jerry, so I’m not going to even attempt the legal aspects. But I believe there are certain things the buyer would have to prove in such litigation. I’d hate for folks to get the impression that just because there’s an undiscovered defect, the buyer can sue the seller and win automatically.
Steve - I think we finally found something about which we agree.
Jonathan, the following is a request for information from an attorney that I have done EW work for. As you can see the list is very through.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (resale transaction)
1.All court documents regarding this case (Complaints, Motions, Etc.) for this transaction or any previous transactions on this property.
2.Sales agreement/contracts between seller(s) and buyer(s) for property(s)including any items agreed to be repaired and/or replaced for this transaction.
3.Any previous sales agreements/contracts, Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS),inspection reports, inspection contracts or other reports, contracts on said property(s) regardless of whether sale was completed.
4.Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS) with the seller(s) and both realtors statements of disclosures if available for property(s) for the last 10 years.
5.Any Geotech, Soils Engineering, Roof Inspections, Foundation, Drainage, and
Structural Pest Control reports/contracts/agreements if available from seller(s) for property(s) for this transaction and any prior transactions.
6.Any other reports that were done by the seller(s), buyer(s) for this transaction any previous transactions within the last 10 years.
7.Any Insurance claims made on this property within the last 10 years.
8.Copy of any inspection contracts/agreements for this transaction.
9.Copy of any inspection reports and / or repairs done on said property and apurtenances for this transaction.
10.Who recommended Home Inspector? (Real Estate Agent, Concierge Service, Etc).
11.Is the inspection company a Franchise or Chain?
12.Any and all Training Material, Training Manuals, etc to train inspector. Type of report generated by inspector and who furnished inspector with the software used in report. If inspector’s company is a franchise need the name and address of franchise.
13.Names and CV’s of all expert witnesses for the other side for this transaction.
14.All maintenance records for property for the last 10 years.
It certainly is, Mike.
Watching with interest, nothing has surprised me in this exchange. It is and always will be about “control”. I control my inspections. I understand partisan interests and have built a referral base the hard way. Instead of finding favor with the partisan interests on the RE side, I find favor with the person signing the check. Heck of a concept, isn’t it? The one key player missing from this discourse is the compliant, non-alarmist inspector that is the “go to guy” if you want to close. This type of individual is the scourge of inspecting. He makes his living primarily by comparing his comparing his “common sense analysis” of buildings to the “Barney Fife”, red-flag waving he accuses his counterparts of using. This is the guy who wants to come to your RE office, talk to you and make a deal with you about the future. Don’t deny these people are out there, it’s not going to work. In my opinion, these guys are the real culprits here. Heck, the “negotiators” are just doing what they do. They want the straightest line between two points. Unfortunately, there are too many in the inspection ranks that find a comfortable seam and exploit the situation. I still hold on to the saying, “If you ain’t help’in, (inspectors)they ain’t call’in” (agents)
Dale hit it dead-bang on. End of story as there’s no more to say.
I agree … good stuff, Dale.
What’s interesting is I’ve never bitched back at a home inspector for calling something. I’ve worked on my clients’ behalf to negotiate repair requests but I’ve never gone back to an inspector with “how the hell could you call that?”
Appraisers are another issue (mainly because I also can run the comps but I’m not going to be crawling in anyone’s attic) but I don’t really want to be hanged in effigy on another password-protected bulleting board.
Thanks to all for your perspective … this has been a great conversation.
I have watched this thread all day & can only conclude that each side should simply agree to disagree.
I am a home inspector in Phoenix that has worked with Johathan in a number of transactions. Please note that I said “worked with” not “for”. In every single instance I have been hired by my client, not Jonathan, and have done my very best to provide my client with the best professional home inspection I am capable of. To be blunt, I take my responsibility to & for my client very seriously. Period!
In my experience, Jonathan is & has been one of the most professional & honest realtors I have dealt with. I have never had a realtor ask me to overlook or downplay any inspection observation I have made. Some of the comments made today could be taken to imply that the realtors want us (home inspectors) to go easy on the inspection etc. This may be the case in some transactions but, in my personal eexperience, it has not occured.
Maybe I am just lucky to have worked with true professionals rather than money grubbing slugs. Maybe the indrustry is changing to match the times. Maybe old prejudices die hard.
Here it is folks: Jonathan has never asked, inferred or implied that I do less than my best on every inspection, no matter what I observed. Why? My take is because he is a true professional that puts the needs, wants & trust of his client above the need for a paycheck. In my humble opinion, I think Jonathan truly cares about his clients welfare & interests first. That is what a true professional does. That is what Jonathan does.
To end my 2 cents worth, I quote an old rock song: “Hit me with your best shot…”. I stand by my comments.
Thank you,
David Lauby
Great, Dave. I know I speak for the entire group here when I say, “give Nick our love”.
http://www.sunlandhi.com/documents/sunlandsamplereport.pdf
I rest my case.
The two previous posts say it best, Dave when you move up from the depths, you might gain respect. Why would you belong to a group that has a test that wouldn’t hold water in court? Step into to the light.
I am both a home inspector and a real estate broker with many years of experience. The real question here is the difference between a “Generalist” and a “Specialist” in regards to home inspections. In California, the California Real Estate Inspection Association (www.CREIA.org) provides specific Standards of Practice that must be met in order to qualify as a home inspection. The standards are really easy to meet; accordingly the qualifications of many of the inspectors are pretty low. While being easy to meet they are an indispensable part of every CREIA inspection report.
There is a small but vocal minority of inspectors who take their business very seriously and routinely exceed the published standards by varying degrees. Some of these inspectors hold themselves out as experts in various fields and provide information that far exceeds the intent of a home inspection. Their fields of expertise vary so there are specific areas of emphasis in their reports. This would include not just tile roofs but every category included in the inspection report according to the expertise.
When an inspector holds himself out as an expert then he may well be liable to identify every defect in that category, but if the inspector is a generalist then he is only required to point out a representative number of defects. That is to say only one defect is necessary to justify referring the system to a qualified specialist. If as a generalist, if I find just one broken tile then I am justified in referring the entire roof to a roofing specialist for revaluation and repair. It is up to the roofing specialist to evaluate the roof and determine the scope of the repairs.
If you hold yourself out as an expert, then you may well be held to a higher standard and be required to point out every potential defect in the roof system. This way exceeds the minimum Standards of Practice provided by CREIA. There is increased liability for exceeding the standards.
What an inspector includes in his report is a business decision. The schism that is developing between the experienced inspectors and the less experienced inspectors is breeding contempt between the groups thus the comments that every good inspector should walk tile roofs is stated, but in the next breath they will state that you should never exceed the standards of practice. The true definition of a home inspection is something I struggle with on every report. In my opinion there is a need for a progressive level of Standards that should be met as the inspector becomes more experienced.
The truth lies somewhere in between. The experts on this forum walk the roofs. From their point of view this is the proper way of identifying defects for their client to make an “Informed Purchase Decision.” From my point of view as a real estate broker, I do not want anybody walking on my client’s tile roof unless it is the roofer retained by the Seller. I just don’t need to deal with the potential problems that arise from “He said, She Said.” And these problems can become significant. Even though I used to install tile in my youth I still inspect from a ladder at the eaves.
Just as a side note, who in their right mind would promote a system where you stack heavy rocks on the highest part of your house that cannot be serviced by the homeowner, where the flashings will wear out long before the rocks wear out, so that we can increase the amount of lumber necessary to hold up the roof in a earthquake, or that can be blown off in a tornado much like shrapnel. Where the intricant design of the elevations insure the flashings will require a specialist far beyond the abilities of the average roofer.
The tile roof industry has done a masterful job of promoting old technology. Tile roofs are a nightmare.
Brad Deal
20/20 Home Inspections
Brad,
Lets look at this from a different perspective concerning the tile roof issue.
If I only inspect the roof from the ground or ladder, only a specific number of defects will be found. The agent or client will ask a roofer to only repair the items specified on the inspection report. What about the other items that were not reported because they were not identified? Regardless of whether you recommend the entire roof be inspected and personally, I think that a cop out.Who then becomes responsible for the leak that occurs at a later date when the buyer moves in? Does everyone including the agents get named for the subsequent mold case that has now ensued and the loss of income, reduced sex drive and other ailments caused by that roof leak. This is exaggerated but factual. Why not do the most thorough inspection on an area that has tremendous liability? We help to reduce everyones liability, most importantly ours! Why is the roofer more qualified to walk the roof? Because he repairs or replaces them. Shouldn’t the inspector be trained well enough to walk the roof and inspect as the roofer would?After all, we are rendering an opinion as a generalist to determine if an expert is required based on a thorough inspection! Not just report one item and say our job is complete. Why are we asked to inspect roofs if we are going to defer them out because of potential breakage? The liability risk of not inspecting outweighs the risk of tile breakage, IMO. I have liability insurance. If I break tiles, I take that risk of liabiliy and will pay to have the roof repaired. That is my obligation of running my business.
Secondly, although the SOP’s are used as guidelines, there is a standard of care issue that must be addressed. The standard of care for inspectors may be that many of the inspectors in the area do walk the roofs. That is the case in this area as many inspectors do walk tile roofs as conditions allow. That important point could be used to discredit the inspector. Walking a tile roof does not make me a specialist or expert. It makes me thorough! Lets apply this jaded logic to all other areas of the home. For example, should we not inspect the electrical panel because we might get electocuted or accidently shut off power causing the refrigerator or freezer to go out spoiling all the food?
SOP’s are like building codes. They are minimum standards. The SOPs of CREIA or ASHI do not state an inspector should specfically walk roofs or how the roof is to be inspected, only that if if it is unsafe to do so or damage may result the inspector is not required to.
Far exceeding those standards and advertizing that one exceeds standards will find the inspector increasing his liability risk and will be classified more a a specialist and not a generalist. Walking a tile roof does not make one a specialist!
You are correct, it is a business decision and I plan on staying in business for a while. Real Estate and inspecting don’t always gel. I would never perform an inspection from a Real Estate perspective as you have stated. Keep you hat on in one direction. If you are an inspector think and ask like an inspector and not as a Real Estate agent!
Steve,
What you are really stating is that there are not any standards of practice for the residential roof certification industry. Back in the early 1980’s FHA and other lenders began asking for a roof certification from a licensed roofer indicating the roof would not leak for one or two years. This “certification” has been mistaken by the public and the real estate industry for a roof inspection. I have not been able to find any significant standards for a roof inspection, accordingly they are subject to the whims of the roofer and are of limited value to our client.
The 4 D’s, Identify, Describe, Disclaim, and Deffer are part in parcel for our inspections. Once we deferr a system to a specialist we have forfulled our obligation to our client. Otherwise we would be soley responsible for every system in the home.
When I order a roof inspection as a broker I provide a list to the roofer of all the items to be reported. This includes all the above roof items that would be included in a home inspection with an instruction to take pictures of everything for my and my client’s review. In my opinion I believe this relieves me as a broker for any roof related issues.
As a home inspector it is important to acknowledge regional differences that apply to the standard of care. While the Standards of Practice are binding throughout the State; the Standard of Care varies from locale to locale. I believe you are located in the San Francisco Bay area. San Francisco is very different from my area here in the San Joaquin valley. Here in the San Joaquin Valley it is the exception for an inspector to walk on a tile roof. Can you apply the same strenuous standard of care from the Bay Area to a less strenuous area like the San Joaquin Valley? I understand the Standard of Care is what the services the other inspectors in the local area typically provide; not what the inspectors from a different geographical area provide.
As for an expert vs. a generalist; it takes specialized training to walk on a tile roof. This training would not only include walking the roof but it would be reasonable to “assume” this would also include the installation. This specialized training may well approach the standard of a specialist and could be construed as an expert. Performing this service is usually confined to a licensed roofer. As a home inspector you may be approaching something requiring a contractor’s license. Ultimately your status as an expert would be decided by a judge and jury. It is this uncertainty that is causes so much consternation.
As for what is included in a home inspection it is all over the board. While there are some franchise inspectors who perform 3 or more inspection each day, I can barely perform one. The standards of practice are so minimal that it is impossible for an educated, caring inspector not to exceed the standards by quite a bit. As the inspector exceeds the minimum standards they become less and less valuable as a limit for the inspector’s liability. This problem is endemic to the inspection industry. Until we as a group acknowledge the significant variations in the scope and quality of the reports there will be a continuing schism between “inspection light” inspectors (including newer inspectors) and the truly experienced inspectors like you.
It is also necessary to acknowledge the needs of the real estate industry. It is ludicous to antagonize such a powerful lobby as the California Association of Realtors (CAR)by unilaterally performing a service that may inadvertantly cause unnecesary uncertainty for the purchase transaction. I do not advocate kowtowing to the Realtors but one must understand the dynamics of the purchase process.
In my opinion there should be a pro forma inspection report much like those used by pest inspectors that would provide the consumer with purchase information that would be consistent though out the State. These reports should be on file, available to any person who requests a copy.
I also believe that qualified inspectors should be allowed to perform repairs on inspected homes, much the same as pest inspectors. But this is a debate for a different time.
Brad Deal
20/20 Home Inspections
[…] far as leverage goes, I’m apparently not the only one who feels the way I do. You can read Brad Deal’s full comment here, but here’s a brief excerpt: I am both a home inspector and a real estate broker with many […]