Jump to content

Meeting SOP requirements


Recommended Posts

Let me try again because you guys went too far afield.

The state SOP requires that I inspect the roof system and specific components. So in my report it says:

Roof coverings, drainage systems, flashings, skylights, chimneys and roof penetrations were inspected. The roof was inspected for readily visible and accessible signs of leaks or abnormal condensation on building components.

If I did not have a the above statement or checkbox for each of those items indicating Inspected, then I have not documented I inspected those items. The state requires text that something happened. Kurt at one time suggested an all photo report. State will not accept that. Must have text. Photos are nice but are acceptable but not what they want.

There was a discussion questioning does a description of an element count as it also being inspected? State is wishy washy about that but generally believes that Inspecting and Describing are two different tasks and must be recorded seperately. I can tell you that the window is a single hung, wooden frame, single pane window. Does that mean I inspected a representative sample of a window in each room? No, only that I described one window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reducing pages in a report isn't the goal. Reducing time, increasing understanding, simplifying format, while complying with SOP, is.

True, and honestly, that is my underlying goal, when I say reducing pages. I'd really like to eliminate as much superfluity as possible. And, I'm seeing some room to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Kurt has never advised an all photo report.

Kurt has advised having photos as the basis for describing conditions with minimal narrative in order to provide a compliant report that's easily understandable with the least amount of time in preparation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...............I'm seeing some room to do so.

There's lots of room to be had.

When I talk to attorneys and individual customers about this stuff, they get it immediately. When I talk to HI's about it, it's all resistance and misunderstanding. HI licensing boards are worse than HI's.

Now, I document what I do with a broad interpretation of State requirements. My attorney thinks I'm compliant, and so do I. If someone wants to question what I did, I show them pictures. Not surprisingly, every time I've done this, everyone gets it immediately. Of course, HI's, as a group, don't get it.

If, one day, the State says I have to textually document each and every thing that I did, I'll design the most minimal checkbox to accommodate their ill and poorly considered ideas about what we should be doing. I'll design it to auto complete, so there won't even be any time input. It will be in tiny print in the extreme rear of the report. Hopefully, I'll be able to retire before folks that have never done my job are able to tell me how to do my job.

Until then, I'm going to go with what my attorney advisers and customers say.

Someday, I'll put up a report sample, but not until there's open minds to discuss process and results. I think some of you guys get it, but most don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...............I'm seeing some room to do so.

There's lots of room to be had.

When I talk to attorneys and individual customers about this stuff, they get it immediately. When I talk to HI's about it, it's all resistance and misunderstanding. HI licensing boards are worse than HI's.

Now, I document what I do with a broad interpretation of State requirements. My attorney thinks I'm compliant, and so do I. If someone wants to question what I did, I show them pictures. Not surprisingly, every time I've done this, everyone gets it immediately. Of course, HI's, as a group, don't get it.

If, one day, the State says I have to textually document each and every thing that I did, I'll design the most minimal checkbox to accommodate their ill and poorly considered ideas about what we should be doing. I'll design it to auto complete, so there won't even be any time input. It will be in tiny print in the extreme rear of the report. Hopefully, I'll be able to retire before folks that have never done my job are able to tell me how to do my job.

Until then, I'm going to go with what my attorney advisers and customers say.

Someday, I'll put up a report sample, but not until there's open minds to discuss process and results. I think some of you guys get it, but most don't.

I'm with you. Try to explain what a running trap is, then show someone a photo of a trap in a crawlspace that's flanked by several feet of PVC on both sides. The person staring at the photo will understand why it's wrong much more quickly than someone reading a lengthy description.

Explain what a double-tap is to someone who's never looked inside a panel, then show them the photo of the breaker in question. It's a no-brainer.

Customers want to understand what's going on in a house, but they don't want to spend hours trying to REALLY understand it. I began to steal adopt Kurt's approach a few years ago, and it truly makes the job easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work for a guy that's a near genius type @ University of Chicago. He studies information overload; it's his area of expertise, and he gets paid to travel internationally lecturing on the topic.

His dissertation says many things, but it says one thing in particular.

There's too much information out there. Folks are overloaded. Average folks couldn't care less about 99% of what we care passionately about.

In the manner of all humans, we imagine our passions translate to everyone else. It's a mistake.

No one has the time to understand everything. Why do HI's as a group think they do?

Whether or not folks in our generation adopt these ideas is highly debatable; HI's don't wanna change nothing about how they operate.

I guarantee that reports in the future will follow the picture model more than the Word based narrative model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

I'm on a state board, I authored an SOP and I write very anal narrative type reports, so I guess I'm one of those dastardly guys that doesn't get it.

We have what we think is a decent SOP. The amount of stuff that we require an inspector to inspect is what we felt was necessary to perform an adequate inspection. There are requirements for minimal description of the home but there aren't any requirement to document that every little thing that an inspector has looked at is functional. They're only required to document deficiencies and we were mandated by the legislature to report and comment on a few health and safety items.

Board members don't review inspector's reports when there is a complaint and we don't audit reports; DOL has an investigator that follows up on complaints and the manager does any audits. Our position was that we inspectors are not there to find and report on the serviceable stuff - we're there to find and report on the non-serviceable/deficient stuff and that an inspector has enough to do in order to do that and doesn't need to be complicating the report by reporting mountains of unnecessary stuff.

As long as an inspector follows the SOP and documents those components that he or she is required to document, which really is very easy to do, the report will show that the home was completely inspected.

It's amazing though, the lengths that some inspector will go to clutter up reports with unnecessary stuff. The other day I did a first year inspection on a home and the client shared the initial inspection report with me. It was about 41 pages long but when I extracted all of the stuff that the guys said was wrong or deficient and pasted them to a separate piece of paper, they took up about a page and a half. There was practically a dissertation about every little aspect of the home. Not dissertations on things that are wrong though; this guy was bulking up the report with mountains of fluff that had nothing to do with deficiencies. The more of the report I read, the more I found myself becoming more and more agitated - frustrated really - with the amount of unnecessary stuff I had to wade through to find the nitty gritty. We don't require him to put all of that crap in his report but he apparently feels that it's needed.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really does raise a good question that is probably more a regional one: What do our customer's EXPECT to see in our reports?

A lot of what goes in my reports is there to eliminate questions (calls) after the report is delivered. (I hate them - not because I don't want to talk to the client, but because it means I didn't give them a complete report, in their mind.) Also, a big motivator regarding what is in my reports is past complaints, which have always been low, but in the last few years have been non-existent. It seems most complaints, if we're good inspectors, arise from: 1. poor reporting (we "notice" a problem, but either fail to (or poorly) describe it. 2. unreasonable expectations. So, I try to make certain that, when it seems prudent, I take the time to tell my client, in writing, "I can't tell you or assure you of that."

Beyond those two basic signals that something needs to be included in a report, it becomes a bit of a guessing game, regarding what clients actually notice and appreciate, and what's just in the way of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every customer likes whatever report you give them. It's a fact. They don't know any better from nothing. Give 50 people 50 different report systems and everyone will like whatever was handed them. So, doing research only provides a teeny picture, not altogether accurate.

So, it goes beyond what you're saying to something else.

How do you give them something informational, easily understood, SOP compliant, and in a manner that allows us to make what we should be earning?

I propose it isn't by providing dense narrative in a Word document.

Which immediately makes all working HI's recoil in disagreement, because that's what most folks are doing.

It's almost impossible to have the discussion. The discussion quickly devolves into personal proclivities more than figuring out how to increase margins by reducing time in process.

Les is the only guy in here that heard me the first time; not sure if he's still experimenting and developing a system, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it goes beyond what you're saying to something else.

How do you give them something informational, easily understood, SOP compliant, and in a manner that allows us to make what we should be earning?

I propose it isn't by providing dense narrative in a Word document.

Which immediately makes all working HI's recoil in disagreement, because that's what most folks are doing.

It's almost impossible to have the discussion. The discussion quickly devolves into personal proclivities more than figuring out how to increase margins by reducing time in process.

Les is the only guy in here that heard me the first time; not sure if he's still experimenting and developing a system, or not.

Well, I'm definitely on board. I spend way too much time writing. Some of that is because I'm still in the process of developing re-usable statements, but just the same, it's exhausting and doesn't leave a lot of time for living. [:-tophat]

So, what you're talking about is really a part of my mission, too.

I've had the pleasure to take in a few inspections of some of the heavy hitters here, and some of them are amazingly concise and compact, which is a real inspiration. The first time I looked over one of Jim Katen's reports (a sample from 2008), I found it to be a beautiful thing - 17 pages including photographs. My inspection report is more than double that size - I hang my head in shame. But, that's why I'm on a mission. I find myself referring to his report often, as if it were a Bible, and wishing I could behold the 2011 model, but haven't asked. [:-graduat

Being a history addict, it all reminds me of a note that orator Edward Everett passed to Abraham Lincoln just after Abe delivered the Gettysburg Address. Everett spoke first - for two hours. Then, Abraham, whose address was so brief that a photographer missed his opportunity to photograph the president, because he took the time to put his hat and other belongings under his chair.

The note said, "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." - a statement worthy of framing and hanging over our desks. [:-thumbu][:-thumbu]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how long does it take to put together one of your "average" reports?

Honestly, all the time, how much?

I'll bet - no, I know it's waay longer than most inspectors want to spend and that's fine by me. It's not a competition to see who can take the most time or the least time to complete an inspection, or about me or my personal likes or dislikes, it's a thread about complying with SOP's. I was trying to show you that even when a regulating body tries to make it as simple as possible on the inspector that the inspector can misinterpret those requirements and add way above and beyond what's necessary to be in compliance.

For example, here's the structural section of our state's SOP. Note that in our system Describe means that you must write it down in your report and that inspect means that you must look at it but don't have to write anything down. Report and refer also must be in writing, but unless you find something that needs to be reported and referred there isn't any need to write anything down.

WAC 308-408C-070 - Structure.

An inspection of the structure will include the visible foundation; floor framing; roof framing and decking; other support and substructure/superstructure components; stairs; ventilation (when applicable); and exposed concrete slabs in garages and habitable areas.

(1) The inspector will:

• Describe the type of building materials comprising the major structural components.

• Enter and traverse attics and subfloor crawlspaces.

• Inspect

(a) The condition and serviceability of visible, exposed foundations and grade slabs, walls, posts, piers, beams, joists, trusses, subfloors, chimney foundations, stairs and the visible roof structure and attic components where readily and safely accessible.

(b) Subfloor crawlspaces and basements for indications of flooding and moisture penetration.

• Probe a representative number of structural components where deterioration is suspected or where clear indications of possible deterioration exist. Probing is not required when probing will damage any finished surface or where no deterioration is suspected.

• Describe any deficiencies of these systems or components.

• Report all wood rot and pest-conducive conditions discovered.

• Refer all issues that are suspected to be insect related to a licensed structural pest inspector (SPI) or pest control operator (PCO) for follow up.

(2) The inspector is not required to:

• Enter

(a) Subfloor crawlspaces that require excavation or have an access opening less than eighteen inches by twenty-four inches or headroom less than eighteen inches beneath floor joists and twelve inches beneath girders (beams).

(b) Any areas that are not readily accessible due to obstructions, inadequate clearances or have conditions which, in the inspector's opinion, are hazardous to the health and safety of the inspector or will cause damage to components of the home.

• Move stored items or debris or perform excavation to gain access.

Now, here's the structural section from the report I described above. I've underlined all that was required to be in compliance with the SOP.

Structure Type: Two Story with crawl space

Foundation wall:

Type: Concrete (solid)

Conditions: Overall condition - appears serviceable; No apparent structural defects noted at the time of the inspection. Anchor bolts/strapping was installed on the foundation wall, holding down the sill plate to the foundation wall.

- Form ties noted on the garage exterior wall - remove as needed

Floor Support:

Type: Wood Joists - 2 x 10's

Sub-Flooring: OSB (Oriented Strand Board)

Conditions: Overall conditions - appears serviceable. No significant problems noted at the time of the inspection.

Beam/Girders:

Type/Size: Solid/Built-up: 4 x 10's or 4 by 12's.

Condition: Overall condition - appears serviceable.

Posts/Columns:

Type/Size: Solid/Built-up; 4 x 4's, 4 x 6's

Condition: Appears Serviceable - Overall condition. With notable exceptions/concerns - No footing under the 4x post - 4 x 4 post located under the stairs, is missing the footing (see photo). Recommend adding the proper footing and provide proper bearing support.

Footing/Piers:

Type/Material(s): Concrete - Pads (cast-in-place)

Conditions: Appears Serviceable - Overall conditions. With the notable exception(s)/concerns above - Post section.

Bearing Walls:

Type/Conditions: 2X6 Construction; Overall Condition-Appears Serviceable. Limited access/inspection;these areas may not be completely visible or accessible, verification of these components is limited.

Roof Framing:

Type: Engineered trusses; 2X4-Top Chord

Sheathing: OSB (Oriented Strand Board)

Conditions: Overall Condition - Appears Serviceable. No visible defects or concerns noted at the time of the inspection.

Roofs are constructed either with rafters (conventional stick-framed), engineered trusses(most common for newer construction), open beams or some combination of these types and styles. Stick-framed roofs are usually made with dimensional lumber (2 X material), but may also use composite/engineered materials. Stick-framed is still used in many cases because it is the most flexible roof framing system. This is often found in complicated roofing systems, vaulted ceiling and low pitched roofing.

Trusses (engineered) are usually of small Wood members (usually 2X3, 2X4's or 2X6's) jointed in the factory to make a long structural assembly. Trusses can span much farther than stick-framed roofs, leaving large open areas below them or permitting partition walls to be located without consideration of the roof structure above. Trusses go up quickly, usually resulting in a cost saving over stick-framed roofs on simple shaped building. Trusses are designed to use the minimal amount of lumber, span longer distances and provide adequate support to the roof covering. Altering,modifying or damage to the trusses will usually result in inadequately supported framing - this is common to find when new skylights, chimneys or pull-down ladders have been installed in the roof framing. Correcting/repairing trusses should always to done by a qualified, licensed contractor. It is recommended that a truss engineer, or truss designer/manufacturer, evaluate and determine the best repair solution for the truss repair.

Basements (lower levels-which are below grade-level) can come in several forms; the completely finished, the completely unfinished and any form in between. The finished basement is considered livable space; finished walls/ceiling(drywall), floor coverings (carpet, vinyl, tile, laminated materials, etc.), mechanical systems (heat, plumbing, outlets/fixtures, etc.). The unfinished basement may be in the same condition as when the house was built-open walls, framing, exposed plumbing, wiring, heating systems, exposed concrete walls and flooring.

Finished basement may be difficult completely inspect due to the wall, ceilings and floor coverings. The inspection is usually based on how the basement was finished, Many homeowners will finish the basement themselves-whether they're qualified or not. Items to be aware of will be recent repairs, patching or painting; newer carpet or floor covering-were these items installed to cover problems? Were electrical outlets/receptacles/fixtures installed properly in the walls and ceilings-the locations installed, the quantify and are they safe? Recommend making inquiries with the Seller?owner about any recent finish work in the basement.

Unfinished (or partially finished) basements are a little easier to inspect-most of the components are exposed and are more readily accessible e for inspection. It maybe easier to inspect the foundation walls for cracks and water entry, the floor for water staining; improper wiring or plumbing and heating systems The main restriction in basements in the amount of storage and personal belongings that may be present during the inspection. Shelving, benches and storage may not allow a complete inspection of the outer walls, floor or framing in some cases. The conditions, visible in the basement, may be quite different when the house is vacant. This company recommends a follow-up inspection of the basement if concerns/problems are present (and become visible) after the basement has been cleared of belongings.

In my opinion, he would have been in compliance with simply:

Foundation wall: Concrete (solid)

Floor Support: Wood Joists - 2 x 10's

Sub-Flooring: OSB (Oriented Strand Board)

Beam/Girders: Solid 4 x 10's

Posts/Columns: Solid 4 x 4's

Footing/Piers: Concrete - Pads (cast-in-place)

Bearing Walls: 2X6 Construction

Roof Framing: 2X4 -Top Chord

Sheathing: OSB (Oriented Strand Board)

Conditions: A 4 x 4 post located under the stairs, is missing the footing (see photo). Add a footing under that post to provide proper bearing support.

The three pages it took to say all of this are below. This looks like one of those drop down systems that populates a bunch of boxes on a page. I know that I can probably type a description of the structure in about the same time that it takes this guy to scroll and click to choose his boxes; and I'm pretty certain that the description will be easier to read and will take up less space in a report than this one.

Click to Enlarge
tn_2011425133851_reportexamplefirstpage.jpg

118.8 KB

Click to Enlarge
tn_2011425133936_reportexamplesecondpage.jpg

96.05 KB

Click to Enlarge
tn_201142513401_reportexamplethirdpage.jpg

98.75 KB

The guy has taken a very simple and straightforward requirement and either misinterpreted it or simply decided that the SOP wasn't adequate for reporting purposes or had an overwhelming desire to plump up his report.

He's turned what could have been a very short and easily-understood section of the report into a morass of words that even I found daunting.

Perhaps if the OP were to go back and study his state's SOP again he might find that it's a whole lot simpler to comply with than he thinks.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I know what our SOP says Mike. My OP was about the idea that 'if you didn't report on it, you didn't inspect it'. Basically, it about the definition of the word 'inspect'.

Curious, what's the definition of 'inspect' as defined by your SOP? Ours says 'to examine...'.

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......................even when a regulating body tries to make it as simple as possible on the inspector that the inspector can misinterpret those requirements and add way above and beyond what's necessary to be in compliance.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, you know, I've been mulling over the thought that if you look at a component, and it's perfectly fine and has plenty of service life, is there any real reason to formally state you looked at it? If you're quite confident the system isn't a problem, there should be no reporting concern

I do, however, like one of Jim's methods: "worked today" or something similar. It makes me smile, because those two words are so simple.and yet, suggest so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,

Ours is simply "Home Inspection" means a professional examination of the current condition of a home. We did not define the word inspect beyond that and there is no requirement to write anything beyond what's specifically required.

Each section of the SOP states specifically what the inspector is required to describe or record or report. Our only written requirements involve describing certain elements of the structure and it's electro-mechanical systems, recording what those elements are and then reporting on any deficiencies noted and recording any recommendations made to the client.

There is no requirement to report that a satisfactorily functioning item is functioning satisfactorily. If the inspector has delivered a report that complies with the SOP the report is evidence that the inspection was performed. One doesn't need to state: "Condition - satisfactory." We expect that if it weren't satisfactory the inspector would report it; after all, that's the whole point of requiring mandatory training and testing and licensing and it's the whole point of the inspector being there.

Here's the rub; every SOP states that there is nothing in that SOP to prohibit an inspector from going above and beyond that SOP if the inspector wants to, and that above and beyond can include the report writing process.

If an inspector was educated by an instructor who spent a large amount of time teaching the inspector how to cover his or her ass and how to write stuff to cover his or her ass, then the report becomes an overweight troll packed with page after page of CYA pablum. Now, if the inspector reports ONLY what's required by the SOP, he or she might find that the client ends up asking questions like, "Well, was the roof OK," because the inspector didn't specifically state in the report, "The roof was OK." Since the client asks the question, the inspector now thinks he needs to add it - but he doesn't, not if he's properly managing the client's expectations.

If every time a client asks an inspector a question about something in the report, the inspector uses that question as a basis to create an additional piece of information, in order to cover his ass and avoid that question in the future, the report grows and grows until it morphs into a plumbed up turkey.

The client needs to know up-front that you won't be reporting on stuff that works and which you are not concerned about. The client needs to know that if you see some cracks in the drywall that in your mind are minor cosmetic issues and aren't a structural issue that you won't be reporting them as a deficiency because the client has hired you to report on the big picture stuff that's going to cost him or her a lot of money - not on fair wear and tear stuff that he or she can clearly see and doesn't need to hire you to find.

We've dug our own hole with this stuff. We've allowed ourselves to be sued over and over again for alleged negligence because we've allowed some folks in this business to become considered "expert witnesses" who are the biggest proliferators of this idea that if you didn't report that it's OK you must not have inspected it. That's our fault for not challenging this kind of stuff sooner.

If you're not managing the client's expectations of what the report will look like, and you're letting the client's unrealistic expectations dictate what's going to be in the report, you're only creating more work for yourself.

If you talk to the folks that authored that SOP you might discover that their intent was very similar but that lots of folks have misinterpreted what their intent was because it doesn't fit the way those folks had been taught to write a report and doesn't provide the unneccessary stuff that folks have dreamed up for CYA.

Want to figure out what you need in your report? Take a completed report down to your attorney along with a copy of the SOP and ask him or her to edit your report to create a sample for you that's based on what's required in your state's SOP. I bet it comes back looking like the new Drew Cary versus the old.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all of this in mind, I think i might move in a new direction and state in the "How to Read This Report" paragraph in the introduction, something like this: "The very basis of the inspection and this report are the Standards of Practice of the American Society of Home Inspectors. Have no doubt that, if the standards require an item, system or component to be inspected, it was. And, unless otherwise noted, it was in good condition or performed the way it was designed to." (Rough draft - off the cuff) ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, why not?

I approach it a little differently. At the top of every section in #8 Ariel bolded font is a little statement that says what I'm required to inspect. At the end of each section is a similar footer that says what I'm not required to do. It's so inoccuous and small that it takes up almost no room on the page and I can imagine that some folks might just scan right over it without reading it. Nonetheless, it's right there for anyone to read; so, if anyone ever calls wondering why I haven't reported on the condition of the faded wallpaper or the central vacuum system, I can just say, "Didn't you read the paragraph at the bottom of the last observation in the interior section of the report where it says, "Inspectors are NOT required to inspect paint, wallpaper or other finish treatments, carpeting, window treatments, central vacuum systems, household appliances and recreational facilities or gymnastic equipment?"

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Inspectors are NOT required to inspect paint, wallpaper or other finish treatments, carpeting, window treatments, central vacuum systems, household appliances and recreational facilities or gymnastic equipment?"

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Mike - Now that is just "not nice" [;)]

You should take the time to test each and all pieces of gymnastic equipment and provide images of you making the moves necessary on the treadmill, bowflex, etc., etc.. [:-bigeyes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...