The Way It's Said

It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. A simple phrase I’m sure everyone has heard repeatedly since they were very young. It simply means to stop and consider your words before you speak. In the business of inspecting homes this is good advice.

Home inspectors are hired for the most part by home buyers to examine a house to look for current or potential defects prior to purchase. Home buyers not only look to the inspector for good information, they expect it.

Vague language is typical in the business of home inspection. It is also a complaint I hear often, the inspector didn’t explain the problem.

In my experience in talking with my colleagues for over 10 years now, there seems to be a general consensus that providing too much information will land an inspector in court. At the same time taking ownership of the report by writing in the first person is also deemed a for sure way to end up in front of a judge. I am told numerous attorneys have said these things to be true.

The problem with any attorney giving advice on how to run ones business is this; The attorney doesn’t have a clue how to inspect a house or run any other business for that matter. What they do know is how to defend a person in court. The advice they give is basically not tailored to operating the particular business, instead it is given as a way to hopefully make what ever screw up occurs defensible in court. Any advice given should be disseminated and used accordingly to fit one’s business, allowing for the job to still be performed.

Giving good, accurate information is what is expected of the home inspector. What can get one in trouble is when one gives information or advice one is not qualified to give. Worse may be not giving enough information or missing a defect.

On a recent home inspection I was informed the home had been previously inspected. One of the major issues was “the roof was beyond its useful life”. This information was given to me second hand. I did not see the inspection report.

When I climbed onto the roof, I saw that while there were some cracked shingles, the roof was certainly not “beyond its useful life”. What I noticed were several things. First the attic ventilation was minimal, a single roof vent and a fan. I dislike fans, they should only be used as a last resort. I did note soffit vents, but without a ridge vent their function is suspect. The other thing I noted was the cracking was generally isolated to a few distinct areas, the lower portions and where the sun seemed to fall on the roof. In the attic I discovered the roof vent had been sealed and the soffit vents were blocked by insulation. The only vent was the fan, which was not operating because it was cold. Attic ventilation should be continuous.

So in my assessment the attic ventilation or lack of is quite possibly the problem with the shingles and will continue to be a problem. The other thing is the roof is quite possibly repairable assuming the ventilation is fixed.

Did the other inspector identify these issues?

I’m not sure, but these issues were not brought up at my inspection. Was the roof problem properly assessed? From the information I heard, no it was not.

What I think occurred was the use of an “out”. A defect was observed and the roof was stated as in need of replacement. The liability had been passed off to the buyer and ultimately the roofing company.

Any attorney would be proud.

I’m not so sure the first buyer would be so happy if they knew the details.

James Quarello
Connecticut Home Inspector
Former SNEC-ASHI President
NRSB #8SS0022
JRV Home Inspection Services, LLC

To find out more about our other high tech services we offer in Connecticut click on the links below:

Serving the Connecticut Counties of Fairfield, Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven, Southern Litchfield and Western New London.