Steve Rush

Gotta disagree. Appearances are important to sellers; it's a pride of ownership thing. It doesn't matter whether or not the stuff behind the paint is rotten, we shouldn't be destroying the finished surface of a house -- even if that finished surface is less than a millimeter thick. If the damage is that bad, we ought to be able to detect it without causing cosmetic damage. There's really very little wiggle room there. It's written in plain English. "Probing is NOT required when probing would damage any finished surface." (The all caps NOT is part of the ASHI standard. I didn't add it.) What's there to "read into it?" Two posts ago, you misrepresented the ASHI SOP in an attempt to convince people that ASHI required probing of finished surfaces, when, in fact, the opposite is true. If you want to probe finished surfaces, fine. But don't tell folks that ASHI requires it. Actually, it's called a brashness test. And it doesn't work as you've described. A brashness test, by definition, damages the wood that you're testing whether it's rotted or not. To do a brashness test, you insert a screwdriver (or an ice pick or an awl) into the wood and you lever it to lift a string of the wood grain off the surface of the wood. If the lifted section of wood breaks in a line perpendicular to the grain, just above the probe, then you've discovered rot. If it breaks to one side or the other or if it just splinters apart, then you haven't necessarily disproved the presence of rot. The rot may still be present but hasn't advanced to a detectible stage yet. A brashness test will severely mar sound wood. I'm not offended, just disheartened that people think they have to act like cowboys when inspecting a house. - Jim Katen, Oregon Jim, I reject the comment that I am a "cowboy" inspector or what you are insinuating as a maverick that goes against the grain of inspecting. You have no idea of my professionalism in the field, my success as an inspector or my credentials to make such a blanket comment. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just rendering my opinions and as you have done. Spirited discussion is one thing. This is moving beyond that into debate and bantering. You have your opinion. I have mind. Lets just say we agree to disagree. I will not be your goat to be drug into further bantering in trying to prove a point or debate the issue. You win! Thread killed! SR

Actually Jim what is arrogant is a seller complaining about damage to his house caused by the inspector. The damage was already there, big time. The inspector just made it more apparent. What kind of finish is there if a softball sized piece of decay fell off? The intent of that comment in the ASHI SOPs is to not cause damage to a previous undamaged surface. That is how I read into it. How you read into it is to your discretion. HI's are not there to be WDO inspectors but if deterioration is suspect they are to probe. Ice picks should not be used. As a WDO inspector as well, I use a flat blade screwdriver cross grain to the wood. If its damaged, with a little pressure it goes in, if not, no damage to the finish. Theres actually a scientific term for it. Its call the Brazeness test. I was being fairly sarcastic about telling the seller failed during testing. More bravado in my posting as a joke. Sorry if it offended you. HI forums are used to present different opinions and perspectives and sometimes the humor gets lost in the translation. I would be more tactful in my conversation with the seller unless he asked me to fix something that is part of my job to find. In which case I would have no problem stating that same comment to him. As GW would say, its not my first rodeo! Steve Rush On-Site Inspections www.on-siteinspections.com

Doesn't anybody read the SOP's of ASHI? If deterioration is suspect the inspector is to probe. My comment, failed during testing! Secondly, the inspector did not cause the rot, deferred maintenance did. If there is a softball size of deterioration that is found during probing, the majority of the wall is toast. I would tell the guy not to kill the messenger. Blame yourself for not taking care of your property. Steve Rush On-Site Inspections

As an inspector of almost 18 years now in the California SF Bay Area, pre-listing inspections are the norm of which is 85-90% of my business. I am one of the more successful inspectors in my area. Several years ago, I co-wrote a very informative powerpoint presentation presented at both CREIA and ITA conferences, CREIA state chapters as well as to the regional and local real estate boards on the benefits of having pre-listing inspections. They are actually incorrectly named as they are seller's inspections. There is no inspections usually before the agent lists the property. Maybe this name came from before the property is listed in MLS. Much of info I have compiled for presentation has been plagerized by other associations for their personal exploitation to market pre-listing inspections. I was scheduled to present at the New Orleans ASHI conference but did not get all of the necessary info to out in time. I think I was burn out on taking about it so much to be honest. Bottom line I consider myself one of the most knowable resources on this subject as I currently and have been performing this in both the hot and slow markets. I am still performing 10 inspections a week in this "down market". I catagorically reject the notion that a pre-listing inspection is anything but thorough. In fact. you have to be extremely thorough in reporting of conditions as you may likely be followed. There is no liability to the inspector if another inspector follows behind as there is no harm until escrow closes. There may be moral responsibility but no legal. If you are thorough in your inspecting for a buyer, why would you be less thorough for a seller? A brief history: A previous third party lawsuit in Calif. called Leko V Cornerstone made inspection reports a disclosure item that can be passed from the buyer to buyer. During the dot com boom in the mid nineties, the agents used pre-listing inspections to have buyers either go into a transaction non continguent or reduce their contiguency periods. Homes were and continue to be sold as is. This is where the agents actually increased everyone's exposure. They sought the inspections for all of the wrong reasons. But what came about from this was the agents understanding of risk management. After the boom ended, it became normal and is considered negligient not to have the inspections performed up front. By having inspections up front the buyer knew what they were buying. This did not prevent them from having their own inspection which is wise. They will usually have the most thorough inspectors as having additional findings when a buyer has there own inspection leads to negotiation and embarrassment. A pre-listing inspection is basically writing a report for an unknown buyer used to supplement ( not substitute) seller disclosure requirements, prevent frivileous negotiation and prevent inspectors from being pawns in negotiation. No more are the agents contacting a less thorough inspector for the seller and a more thorough inspector for the buyer. Not in this area anyway! I will do a sellers inspection and either do another inspection for the buyer or a walk-through consultation. What better way to increase your bottom line 1 1/2 times.- 2 times I have inspected the same house for the seller, the buyer, the buyer who now becomes the seller and then for another buyer on several occasions. Personally, I feel that when a buyer knows what they are buying there is less likelihood for buyers remorse and civil suits. We as inspectors are now taking on the responsibility of added disclosure. The buyer is more likely to sue if they feel they have been lied to. The buyer has more of a comfort level when all reports, invoices for repair and disclosure documents are provided up front. I have not had one civil suit in over 15 years. I do not feel that performing these inspections has increased my exposure as I am thorough in my reporting. If you are a lousy inspector, it doesn't matter whether you work for a buyer or seller. Sometimes it really doesn't matter, frivileous suits are part of doing business. Having a limitation of liability clause in a contract creates a speed bump in litigation, but that is for another thread. What is changing in this profession of the role of inspectors as being white knights on white horses being strictly buyer's advocates. We are purveyors of information and should write conditions that are non biased but factual to the conditions seen. We are real estate inspectors not strictly home inspectors. I inspect properties. They may be commercial or residential. If you limit yourself to one role and purpose you will not be able to compete long term. Successful inspectors learn to diversify and see looming market changes and adapt before the market change.I have added additional inspection services that are not strictly for the buyers of properties. If one wishes further information on pre-listing/ seller's inspections, please contact me directly via email. Steve Rush On-site Inspections email: on-siteinspections@rcn.com www. on-siteinspections.com