We just sold our home and saw the buyers inspection report for negotiating. It is very frustrating that buyers are using the inspection to 'drop the price' of the home instead of using it as a tool to identify the integrity of the structure and mechanics.

In the report we saw, it states items that need to be fixed, such as:

Attic NEEDS more ventilation
Sidewalks NEED to be replaced
Garage NEEDs to be re-wired.

I thought they should only list what is wrong instead of offering advice on what needs to be done. Should the report state items such as:

Attic has no ventilation
Sidewalks are broken and uneven
Garage does not have electricity.

Isn't it the responsibility of the inspector to state how he finds the condition of the house and to not state what, or how, things need to be fixed?

Building Inspectors, along with Mortgage Loan Originators, remain one of the only Real Estate related professions which IS NOT LICENSED in most jurisdictions; so there is no universal standard that must be met . . . . just satisfying that member of the Public who is paying the Inspector's Fee - The Buyer.

Sometimes they find more than is necessary to satisfy the Buyer because of an underlying motivation - you don't get sued for deals that die because of the Inspection.

It's very unusual for the Seller to obtain a copy of the COMPLETE Inspection Report - usually just excerpts are provided that facilitate the Buyer's bargaining position. Consider yourself the exception !

Just some observations.

Look at your contract - Ours says "Items must be preforming the function as intended with no NEED of immediate repair".

Inspectors should keep this in mind but many do not - so it's up to us, the agent, to keep this in mind for our clients. Also remember that it is not up to the sellers to bring items in a house up to code (lots of inspectors and agents too will try to pull this one).

But, yes you are right you will see all kinds of "unneeded" things on an inspection report. Protects the inspector from liability.

Most inspectors won't (and shouldn't) state HOW things should be repaired/corrected, but they definitely should be stating that specific items need to be replaced, repaired or corrected.

CA is one of those states where the seller is entitled to a complete copy of all reports prepared on their property.

Home Inspectors are hired to report the conditions of a home.

If there are visible, or even probable defects, it is the responsibility of the home inspector to list these sorts of items because this is what he/she gets paid to do. They don't want a home buyer to come back after a home purchase and say, "you never listed these defects in your home inspection report."

Not only do they list defects, they also recommend what should be done to fix the problem. They don't want a buyer coming back and suing them because the inspector didn't tell them certain things should have been fixed.

Our contract states "Performing the function for which it's intended" which leaves some pretty grey areas open for dispute. However, if it exists and isn't working we request the seller fixes it. If it should be there, but isn't, then it's not covered unless it's a code violation.

I wonder what the inspectors qualifications are to make the statement regarding inadequate ventilation, when NAHI SOP states:

6.3 Limitations.

The inspector is NOT required to:

6.3.7 Determine adequacy of roof ventilation.

That statement "not required to" just sets the minimum of what an inspector is supposed to do. He may do more. There is a wide range of knowledge and capabilities among home inspectors and the SOP of any organization does not want to limit anyone doing more if needed or required.

Although he has no licensed qualifications?
I would expect that the inspector is performing within his qualifications. Saying, it's just the minimum requirement is not correct without having the qualifications IMO.
p.s. A more appropriate statement would have been:
"Buyer to have a licensed .... inspect the attic for adequacy of ventilation"

Qualifications do not necessarily require "licenses." A properly educated and experienced inspector can absolutely make this call. I would be wasting my clients time and money by recommending additional "inspections" on this matter.

"Further investigation," "further evaluation," "additional inspection," etcetera, are terms used when the inspector is saying "I don't know." Granted, sometimes "I don't know" is warranted (such as in recommending geological evaluations), but I don't need an electrician to "inspect" for proper wiring when I've already determined that it's wrong.

Obviously, certifications and or licensing are state specific
and NAHI seems to agree about the HI's limitations, especially as observed by the OP's statement by the HI: "Attic NEEDS more ventilation" which shows the HI's incompetence.

You will find that inspectors have very limited liability (usually up to their fee), even though they might end up costing you thousands of dollars on a purchase.

While I would recommend getting a home inspection for any property 75K+ I would also see if a family friend that knows real estate can do a walk though with you. You will look at aspects of a property more closely when you, or someone you know, has a vested interest.

Good luck!

Wow. I guess I should dump my $1,000,000 E&O policy. Maybe you can speak to my carrier about reducing my annual premium.

you need to make sure you are using your own inspector, and one with a good reputation. Inspector Jeff is right- there is a wide range of people out there. My inspector did say what the errors were and suggest what to do to fix the. He has a sample report on his website, http://accurateinspections.com/sreport.pdf. Hopefully that will help. It is a lot yours.

Good luck I hope the house works for you.

Gale

Thanks for the sample report galejones. I am purchasing a home soon and i worry most about inspections especially for big stuff like foundation and electric which are big deal breakers for me.