Electronic inspection reports have flaws
Consumers, brokers suffer at hands of technology
By Barry Stone, Tuesday, March 3, 2009.DEAR BARRY: I am the broker of a large real estate company. In my area, most home inspectors use computerized reports, with photos of the defects they disclose. Very few still use the old-fashioned, hand-written forms, and I seldom give my business to those backward dinosaurs.
One of those technophobes happens to be the most experienced home inspector in my area. He usually finds defects that are missed by other home inspectors. In fact, he even finds problems that are missed by the termite inspectors. But I can't stand his lousy 1990 carbon copy reports. They're hard to read and harder to e-mail. So I never refer this Neanderthal to my clients. But when other agents refer him, his reports make me so mad I could pull out my hair. What is it that keeps these closed-minded idiots from getting with today's high-tech program? --Yuli
DEAR YULI: Sit down and cool off. Businesses today are in technological transition, including home inspection and real estate companies. Most home inspectors have made the change to electronic reporting, but a few remain stuck in their old ways. Some are part-time inspectors, without a major commitment to the business. Others are comfortable in their routines and have little interest in state-of-the-art innovations. And there are some professionals who recognize the need to modernize but have been too busy inspecting homes to invest in change.
Old-style reports are not as user-friendly as the new electronic versions that include photographs of defects. On the other hand, not all computer reports are as easy to read as they ought to be. In some reports, the defect disclosures are obscured by paragraphs of "boiler plate" verbiage. In others, the disclosures are so vague that the defects cannot be readily understood. But all of these issues are eclipsed by the essential purpose of home inspection: to disclose property defects.
You admit that the "Neanderthal/dinosaur/technophobe/idiot" who does not get your business is the most thorough home inspector available; that he finds problems that other home inspectors miss. This means that the "high tech" reports that your clients receive from other home inspectors do not provide complete disclosure of all significant defects. It means that you prefer those incomplete reports to the out-dated, carbon copy reports that contain more actual disclosures. The question, therefore, has shifted. Instead of old report forms vs. new electronic reports, the issue has become partial disclosure vs. full disclosure of property defects. In other words, form vs. substance.
If this is the choice, which do you suppose is more important to your home-buying clients? Would they prefer full disclosure or fancy disclosure? And what about your liability as a broker? How would you defend yourself if sued for incomplete disclosure? Would you tell the jury that you avoid thorough home inspectors who don't print fancy reports? That would hardly invite a favorable verdict.
So here is the bottom line: Home inspectors who take their business seriously should find a comprehensive electronic report system to maintain viability in the marketplace. Meanwhile, Realtors should recommend the most thorough home inspectors available, regardless of the style of reports they generate. In either business, it's all about representing the best interests of clients, while limiting liability.
To write to Barry Stone, please visit him on the Web at www.housedetective.com.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Jon Boyd on March 3, 2009 - 1:36pm.
Barry,
I agree completely with your response as far a "thorough w/ carbon paper and pen" compared to "quick and easy with computer".
And I would take it a step further.
If the writer is working for the brokerage that represents the buyer, then their job should be to inform the client of the different options of home inspectors and let the buyer client choose.
It is a decision that a buyer can and should make with the input from their buyer's agent or designated buyer's agent.
Some buyers don't want an inspection that lasts six or eight hours, while some want all the detail they can get.
I do tell our clients that we recommend they use an inspector who has done at least 2,000 local inspections and is a ASHI member or equivalent, but that sill leaves a good number of choices in our area.
Regards,
Jon Boyd
Broker/Manager
The Home Buyer's Agent of Ann Arbor
http://buyersagentannarbor.com
Submitted by Emmanuel Scanlan on March 3, 2009 - 3:55pm.
Barry,
Good column and good responses, as usual!
I would have to take exception to the first post though by Jon Boyd. This is not meant to lessen your comment but instead shed a different view on it.
"I do tell our clients that we recommend they use an inspector who has done at least 2,000 local inspections and is a ASHI member or equivalent, but that sill leaves a good number of choices in our area."
By pushing clients to an Inspector with this type of record is helping them to limit their choices and draw them away from potentially outstanding Inspectors who do not meet your criteria. Additionally you are gauging an Inspectors ability and competence on the number of inspections they perform and whether they belong to one specific association. I know several Inspectors in my area who are ASHI members and claim over the 2000 inspections you mention. However, they have been in business less than 3 years. If you do the math, and they are telling the truth about the number of inspections, then something just does not sit well. Yes it is possible to perform that many inspections in that time frame. However it is not probable without cutting corners and performing a minimalist inspection, if that!
As for associations, they are great things. They are, however, there for the association members first and the consumer secondly, if at all. Associations do not make a good Inspector, good Realtor, good Engineer, etc. Only the Inspector can make themselves good.
I have been called by potential client(s) in the past who did not use my services, and instead went with the cheaper Inspector of these associations. They received very poor report(s) from these Inspectors belonging to an association and who had over 2000 inspections. The Inspector refused to work with them after the inspection when they voiced their complaints to the Inspector. After reviewing their report(s) the client sends I am truly astounded that the Inspector had lasted this long in the business.
So don't discount that Inspector who has only been in the business a year or two and only performed a number of inspections in the hundreds, and not thousands. It is quite possible they are the ones performing the six hour inspection and finding every little issue the home has. The name of the game is providing information to the client and not just a "Feel Good" inspection.
Emmanuel J. Scanlan
PS Inspection & Property Services LLC
www.psinspection.com
214-418-4366 (cell)
TREC License # 7593
International Code Council, Residential Combination Inspector #5247015-R5 (Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Building)
Texas Residential Construction Commission, Third Party Warranty Inspector #1593
Texas Residential Construction Commission, Inspector, County Inspection Program
Texas Department Of Insurance, VIP Inspector # 08507061016
Hayman Residential Engineering Services, Field Technician
CMC Energy - Certified Energy Auditor
Knowledge is power, but sharing knowledge brings peace!!