Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
inspectorbruce

Comment on ASHI Standards Improvements

Recommended Posts

The ASHI Standards of Practice Committee has issued proposed improvements to the ASHI Standard of Practice for Home Inspections. The Committee encourages all interested parties to submit comments and suggestions for other improvements to this Standard. Please email your comments and suggestions to bruce@dreamhomeconsultants.com.

Click here for the proposed standard

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put in the link. He'd forgotten to include the link when he cut and pasted his input solicitation from the ASHI site.

Gee, hope ASHI doesn't come after us now for cutting and pasting content from their site to TIJ. A while back they wanted $1 per report produced to allow an inspection program company to include a feature in their software program where an inspector who is an ASHI member can click a button to add his association's SOP to his reports. [V]

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this work is very difficult. I "helped" for many years and really do know the difficult task it is.

But, this really looks like yet another attempt by home inspectors to limit liability while trying to define what they do. Very difficult to do and I don't think this draft is one of the better attempts.

Few too many typos for my inspectors eye and I had to strain to keep subject verb straight.

Might just be me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the message was posted on the ASHI discussion board, but if so, I bet he'll get myriad suggestions from the 2-3 folk that frequent that "bored".

And, if anyone there says a bad word like *poop*, the high & mighty Eric ****** will delete their post. What a frickin' joke of a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez! BB has a sample report of 40 pages. That's just copy and photos. What an imposition on the reader!

Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to read it and then stopped and tuned out when I read:

The inspector shall not:

E. traverse attic load?]bearing components that are concealed by insulation or by other materials.

That's the biggest load of crap I've every seen. Water it down even more. Make it even easier for an inspector to avoid doing a thorough job.

This is a head nod to the guy that climbs up on the top of a ladder and sticks his head in an attic that's like 2200 square feet, looks around and is able to see about 400 sf and says, "Yep, everything looks good to me."

It's almost as bad as the guy who says he won't inspect an attic because he's afraid he'll damage the truss by walking on it. The same folks never explain how it is that the electricians, plumbers, HVAC guys, cable TV guys, insulation guys and sound system guys are able to climb through an attic without damaging a truss and an inspector, who is supposed to be a so-called expert at houses can't seem to do it.

Losing more and more respect for that club.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez! BB has a sample report of 40 pages. That's just copy and photos. What an imposition on the reader!

Marc

It could easily be reduced by 2 or 3 pages just by eliminating the words "We observed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"E. traverse attic load bearing components that are concealed by insulation or by other materials."

So technically, if an attic is floored with plywood, I don't have to enter it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"E. traverse attic load bearing components that are concealed by insulation or by other materials."

So technically, if an attic is floored with plywood, I don't have to enter it.

Good observation. Although, wouldn't the plywood be considered a load bearing component?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an ASHI member who will be affected by changes to that SOP, I'd appreciate a frank discussion of the issue rather than ad hominem attacks against Bruce.

Remember that the proposed changes are the work of a committee, not an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I took out my slights.

Last time, "it" was singularly officious and dismissive of recommendations, and I projected the same thing onto this effort. It's hard to separate the messes that come out of ASHI with the individuals that often are pushing them. I'll try to keep an open mind.

It certainly looks like a piece of work designed and accomplished by a committee. Nearly every alteration sounds like the author(s) are unfamiliar with written communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. a reason why a deficiency was reported in 2.2.B.1 if, in the professional judgment of the inspector, the reason may not be self-evident to the client,

That means to give the reason for reporting it to the client (I'm reporting it because you hired me to), rather than the reason why the condition exists.

There's many more language errors like this one.

Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. First, I would argue that it is not a Standard, rather, a set of Standards.

Under 2.2, the inspector "Shall" - which means he must. (Unless there is a contradictory Standard that may not always mean he must.)

Under 2.3C he gets the opportunity to not report "if requested". So inspector joe does a pre sale inspection, finds many problems but the owner (client) asks that he not report those problems. "Requested, and or agreed to by the client." The owner provides the report to a buyer and the inspector skates on the problems he did not report, based on an ASHI Standard.

Why remove the requirement to include voltage in the electrical section? Wouldn't a client want to know that he may only have a 110v system?

Bunch of other stuff. ASHI has been fine tuning the Standards since they were first written and this iteration seems to drop the standards to an even lower level document.

Stronger standards not weaker standards please. The 40 page dum dum report my friend recently received was based entirely on the ASHI Standards and missed thousands of dollars of damage. I was ashamed of the quality of that document bearing the ASHI name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×