What does the fine print on your home inspection say? Usually, they have enough lawyer-written disclaimers to protect themselves quite well.

/t

I doubt you'll get far with the home inspector, but good luck (usually the deck is stacked against you in such arbitration cases as triciae mentioned). Did you make sure that the inspector had an active and current certification with the ASHI prior to the inspection, and were you with the inspector during the inspection of the home? I'm assuming that the home wasn't new construction, so it's looking as if arbitration against the inspector is about your only recourse. The question you'll have to ask yourself is, am I willing to gamble $1400 to win $4500 (or less)? For me, I'd have to lump it and move on.

Thanks for the input! The inspector did and does have a current license. The fine print states that conflicts should be resolved through construction arbitration. DH and I were not with the inspector, although the realtor was. The realtor confirms the inspector looked in the attic, but he obviously didn't report everything he saw. He also incorrectly marked trusses when it's actually rafters, he missed that the bathroom and kitchen vents go directly into the attic rather than out the roof, and he noted there were 10" of insulation when the insulation doesn't even reach to the top of the 2x6s. I think he stuck his flashlight up there, said, "Yep, it's an attic" and came back down the ladder!

It's not just the money at this point, it's also the principal of the thing. If he can honestly look at dozens of brand new 2x4s added to support the valley of the roof and think that is a-ok and not indicative of any kind of problem, he shouldn't be an inspector.

DH and I keep going round and round on this. It doesn't feel right to just let it go, but we also don't want to be out any more money than we need to be out. If we had some indication of how the arbitration process usually goes, it might help us make our decision.

Thanks again!

In which state do you reside? I ask because the requirements of the state licensing law may or may not be in your favor...in terms of whether or not he fulfilled the state requirement in terms of the SOP for the inspection.

That said, bear in mind that most licensing regulations, as well as the SOP's of most if not all HI professional organizations specifically state that the HI is not required to enter any space that he deems to be unsafe.

If the attic had no flooring, or the opening was not large enough, the HI would have only been able to perform a limited visual inspection...that may explain why he did not see what he would have seen otherwise.

However, once again, most licensing regulations, as well as the SOP's of most if not all HI professional organizations specifically state that the HI must make sure the report states that there was limited or no access...and that the findings are based on minimal observation at best.
Did the report state as such?

Last but not least, your success in arbitration will depend upon how well the HI complied with the law, if the HI clearly spelled out the limitations in the contract, if you had the opportunity to review that contract before the actual inspection, and whether or not his report explained the limitations of the attic inspection.

I am curious as to what the HI had to say in terms of why he missed the items that he missed.

Also, as a point to bear in mind.ASHI or any of the HI organizations "certification" is meaningless to the consumer. They have zero verification processÂ..in other words, you could take the test (which BTW has been dumbed down quite a bit over the last few years), submit 250 HI reports that are not your ownÂand become ASHI "certified".
ThenÂ..if someone complains to them about an HI, they might slap his/her wristÂbut that is pretty much itÂas they are hurting for membersÂand have no desire to reduce ranksÂregardless.

Licensing does not offer much better to the consumerÂexcept if the HI is required to carry insuranceÂbut that can be a whole other issue unto itself.

Nothing beats checking referencesÂ.. asking questionsÂ.. making sure the HI is indeed insuredÂusing only the HI that actually writes full reports (as opposed to bogus "walk through" check lists and boiler plate) and attending the inspection if at all physically possible. That is the only way to have the best chance of having a home inspection performed in the most thorough and professional way possible.

My problem is that he sounds like he doesn't want to be an inspector, therefore isn't doing the job he's supposed to. I know someone in another state that was training to be one but hated it. I could picture him doing something like this because he didn't care, it wasn't on him.

Think of how many other people that may also get screwed due to his "word". Do we now need to get 3 inspections of a potential house we want to buy to get the right information?

If it was that obvious and was left out, he is wrong & should have his license suspended or some sort of consequence. If it cost me $2,000; it would be considered money well spent. I think I would call another inspector to look the house over to make sure there isn't something else that was missed

btw, at another real estate board I read that there are different kinds of inspections. One is a cheaper less thorough one while the other is more and they dig deeper. Don't know how true this is, now even sure I could find the post about it.

roselvr: "One is a cheaper less thorough one while the other is more and they dig deeper"

True in all respects...as the bargain price inspection is not much more than "walk-through", performed to minimum standards if that.also known as one gets what they pay for...

Granted...one can get a poor inspection that is costly...but if one does ones homework...they would realize that the cheaper the inspection cost, the quicker it will be.as the HI needs to do quite a few each day to make a living at the bargain basment rate...and bottom line, the results are often not worth the paper that are written upon.

Rulean average size home in average condition should take at minimum 2.50 hoursEXCLUDING the additional inspections that are not part of the home inspection, such as septic, mold, radon, termite, etc

It makes sense to go for the bargains on the little things...but when you are talking an investment that is often a quarter mil at least, a cheap and/or quickie inspection is no bargain at all...

We are in Wisconsin. We did hire an inspector after checking references. However, the inspector we made the appointment with sent his colleague instead, has since sold his business and is nowhere to be found. In our state, the inspector does not have to enter the attic, which I have no problem with. The attic hatch is easily accessible with a ladder (it's in the garage) and inspectors here are supposed to look into the attic (or crawlspace or whathaveyou) if it's safe to do so. He did look in the attic and somehow missed the 23 2x4s that are within 20 feet of the opening and visible without even shining a flashlight in there. If you shine a flashlight you can see several more 2x4s.

When we discovered the issue, DH called the inspector. The inspector immediately came back out to the house and looked in there again. He apologized and said he thought maybe they were handholds to make it easier to walk around. I wish I had a picture here on my computer but if you saw this, you would know how ridiculous that is. They are all clustered in the valleys where there is absolutely no room to walk around and they are spaced just a few inches from each other. They are most definitely not handholds. All the roofing contractors that we had come out for estimates laughed about how absurd that was and the structural engineer just shook his head.

This was just a general inspection - like I said it was only $315. I know there is such a thing as a home engineer or something that undergoes more rigorous training and certification, but DH and I are pretty well-versed in construction and can handle most things ourselves. We were absolutely not expecting him to make any kind of judgement about the structural integrity but to just make mention that there were things in the attic that may warrant more checking. If only we had looked into the attic ourselves...but the home was vacant and since the inspector didn't note anything at all unusual in the attic, we didn't think it necessary to lug a ladder over there and take a peek.

We're fortunate in that we have the money to make the strucutral repairs, but his other customers might not be so lucky. For us, it's just means my new kitchen countertop and floor will be delayed a bit, but I really think he did not handle this inspection in a competent manner and his followup has been even more irksome.

In terms of you get what you pay for, we got less. Even the most basic inspection (and this lasted over 3 hours for a 1700 sf home so it was somewhat thorough) should have been able to tell us, "Hey, there's something funky going on up in that attic with lots of new boards nailed on in places they aren't usually nailed on. You might want to have that checked out." This is a pretty obvious thing to miss and/or omit from the report.

Obviously, I am a little bitter about this, lol!

Have you looked the contract over to make sure there isn't a clause that limits the HI's liability?

My BIL is an inspector and I know he used a standard license that includes this. If someone wants an inspection without a limitation of liability then there is an additional charge (think big $$$). No one has ever asked for it.

Arbitration can be a mean experience. Like a little mini-court and is usually binding. It's not good to do one unless you are experienced with the rules - But, there was a time when "arbitration" was all the rage (insurance companies and car dealers, doctors, they all like them but they all have more money than the consumer and an arbitration can cost far more than litigation, it's a way of scaring off the consumer. Mediation is a better way to handle such a problem, but often times that involves the HI in this case, admitting (in theory) that he did something wrong, a boo boo as we say. But your contract with him may have protections in it for the HI. For instance, the HI doesn't include the attic. It's a small enough claim to bring yourself in court - but I wouldn't recommend doing anything without spending an hour with a lawyer. Most won't charge you for a short consultation and if you call your state bar association, they usually have a list of attorneys on a list who will only charge a very nominal fee for a meeting.

MP

IMO, the first issue is that the HI you hired did not perform the inspection. I'm not even sure how this happened...other than that the REA did not bother to check to see if the HIs name was the same as the name of the HI whom you told the REA would be performing the inspection.

That being the case, and, since you were not present at the inspection I'm not clear on the contract you signed...was it with the HI you hiredor the one who showed up in his place?

If you did not sign a contract with the HI who acutally performed the inspection, I don't see how you can be held to the arbitration clause.

Personally, I would sue him for fraud...as he most certainly knew you did not hire him...

When did you find out about the bait & switch?

Also, $315.00 is indeed the bargain price...also there is no classification in your state as a home inspection engineer...a home inspector is SUPPOSED to be able to do the job properly...but as I said...most licensing regs are not worth the paper they are written on either...

Have you filed a complaint against him with the state?

Sorry you are faced with this. But if misery loves company, we paid over $800 for a licensed inspector that specialized in old homes. I wouldn't want to tell you things that he missed. My DH is excellent, and we had a contractor check things, all missed roof problems, a Br sink that drained into a crawl space, I could go on. Our contract covered him. If we went to court we would only recoup the price of the apparaisal. Obviously not worth it.

Moneypenny, Triciae is right - get your inspection report out and read the fine print. If this inspector had a decent attorney, there is most likely disclaimer language in the report that will give him an out. That's the first thing you should do.

What is right and not right and principles won't matter if he covered his backside.

My 2 cents for all buyers, always always always accompany the inspector when the inspection is going on. I think it's a huge mistake to trust someone who's money isn't on the line to represent your interests.

That's perfect hindsight, though. Now, take a look at the report.

Moneypenny, you need to spend a little money and talk to a real estate attorney. Just because someone puts an exculpatory clause in a contract, as some have mentioned, does not mean they are enforceable. Typically a licensed person cannot relieve themselves of liability with an exculpatory clause. Every state is different, so you need to check with an expert.

With all the problems that show up with home inspectors, maybe it is time to contact the elected officials of your state and ask them to introduce laws that these people need to be state licensed. Yes there are some good ones and many are contractors.
But until this happens, ask your building department for an occupancy inspection. I know in Los Angeles County they do this. Yes, it is expensive, but they go by the codes.
When we sold, our buyer ask my DH to go with the HI, because he was a building inspector. In fact the HI, appreciated it and claimed he learned alot and might look into getting a different job. Yes, we did have to correct a few things, because my DH had overlooked a few things he never got around to fix while we lived there.

Thank you so much for all the feedback. This is exactly what I needed. I will try to answer all the questions. There are about 3 pages of fine print on the contract and we have read it all. It does basically say that the HI is not responsible for anything, however, we contacted the licensing agency and the construction arbitration people and they both said that, if he's negligent, he's not protected. We didn't see the contract until after the inspection. Obviously, we know now that we should have insisted on looking at it first, but it was one of those "make the offer on the house and we have three days to do an inspection" kind of deals so we didn't. Also, the inspector we thought we hired had such great references it didn't seem necessary. We didn't know until after the inspection that a different HI did the inspection. The original guy suddenly retired, sold the company and moved out of state or something. Since DH made the appointment, I don't know what was said during that conversation and DH doesn't remember it because it didn't seem important at the time. He knows he asked for the guy by name, but whether the scheduler confirmed that it was going to be that specific guy or not, he doesn't remember. I'm not comfortable pursuing a fraud case because we simply can't remember how that part happened and some of the blame may lay with us.

In this area $315 is the typical price or slightly higher than average for an inspection. There are several places here that will do them for about $225, and I even know a couple that charge only $189.

We do have the name of a good attorney, but we're not sure if we want to go that route. DH and I talked last night and think we will try the mediation offered through the BBB and see what that gets us. It's only a couple hundred bucks and will give us the satisfaction of telling him to his face what we think of his competency (in a polite, professional way, of course ;)). It all boils down to the fact that we think he's negligent because he didn't note the additional 2x4s in the attic. He contends that they weren't noteworthy. We finally received a response from him through the BBB yesterday and he's tossing around things like "hogwash" and "I'll let you be the judge of Mr. Moneypenny's honesty and integrity."

If we ever buy another house, I think we'll skip the professional inspection altogether! DH can do all this himself. We'll just be sure to bring our ladder and look in the attic next time, lol!

Moneypenny, I don't know the background on your house, who you bought it from, etc. But I'm curious if Wisconsin has disclosure laws that protect the buyer? In other words, was the seller required to complete disclosure statements and did the seller omit facts about the roof? Maybe seeing an attorney about recourse against the seller would be the way to go. A letter from an atty to the seller might be enough to at least have the seller split the cost of repairs.

A few more points...for those who believe that licensing is a panacea...its not...as proven by moneypenny's experience in Wisconsin...where licensing has been in effect for almost 10 years.

Legislators justify their existence by passing all sorts of laws...but then neglect to include language that would make the law truly effective. In addition, there is always a question of fundingand more often than not, the legislation proves weak indeed without the proper funds to enforce the law.

Although there are no guarantees in life, a buyer does have certain tools to use with which to protect their interests:

1) Look for an HI WHEN you decide to look for a home, not after you have made an offer, in order that you are not forced to settle at the last minute for whoever is available.

2) If your state regulates the profession, only hire one who is licensed...and verify that the license is in effect. Check to see if there have been complaints and/or disciplinary actions against the HI.

3) Get references and check them.

4) Ask the HI how long he expects the inspection to take. Anything less than 2.50 hours for an average house is a warning flag.

5) Eliminate anyone who provides a report that is a check list...same day or otherwise.

6) Ask to see a sample written report...if its mostly boiler plate about homes in general.move on.

7) Try to find an HI who carries Errors and Omissions insurance.......even if your state does not require such.

8) Always get the contract up front...prior to inspection. For example, in NJ..it is law that the HI must provide such no latetr than 24 hours after scheduling the inspection.and speak directly to the HI who will be performing the inspectionNOT just the scheduler.

9) Familarize yourself with what is and isn't included in a home inspection. if you require additonal service..such as radon, termite, mold testing, septic, etc, make sure the HI has the appropriate licensing (if required) and/or training, edcuation and experience in those fields that he can prove. Otherwise, hire a separte professional in addition ot the HI who does have such....as most HI's who try to be Jack of All Trades are indeed usually Master of None. Make sure that whomever provides those additonal services carries insurance for such...even if it is the HI...as the HI E&O gnerally only covers what is included in the home inspection....all else requires additional riders. Ask for PROOF of all being in effect.

10) If at all humanly possible...attend the inspection....it should be TOP priority.

11) READ the report thoroughly. The report should describe HOW places such as attics, crawl spaces, etc were inspected...or not. It should cover all aspects of the home. Call and get answers to any questions that you may have, and follow all recommendations for additional services or evaluationsBEFORE closing.

Last but not least, realize that as nice as it would be to be able to trust all supposed professionals to perform their job properly, in the real world this is just not the case. Therefore, the best way to protect ones investment is to make the most responsible choice and as such, homework must be done.and the information found must be used properly in making a decision.

Also bear in mind that in many states that regulate HIsit is only the opinion of the HI that is valid in the RE transaction.therefore, avoiding hiring an HI may not be possible in terms of recourse form the sellers on items needing repair or replacement.

And, code officials usually specialize in a specific code discipline and are rarely licensed in all..and are not known to be any more ethical than any other profession.therefore that is probably not the best solution.

In the end, nothing replaces ones own due diligence.

Excellent point about disclosure by Kylie. Obviously if there were some "repairs" the seller was aware of a problem with the roof.

Kylie, I believe Wisconsin does have a disclosure law. We did get a 30+ page disclosure because the home was technically owned by a relo company. The disclosure stated that an additional beam had been added to address a sag in the roof over the garage (NOT the attic). That beam was easily visible to us since it was not in the attic. The disclosure also stated that new metal flashing had been added to the valleys. It stated nothing at all about the 2x4s in the attic space. It is possible, I suppose, that the inspector that did that report also thought nothing of it. Perhaps DH and I have unreasonable expectations. (But in that case, our structural engineer and five roofing companies also have unreasonable expectations). The disclosure was otherwise extremely thorough. For example, it mentioned the notice of mold in the corner of the crawlspace (a small 1' x 1' section). A mold expert was called in and wrote three reports explaining the variety of mold, the ppm, etc, and how to treat it. He came back 1 and 3 months after treatment to test and reported that no active mold spores were found. That was all in the disclosure. There was a stairstep crack in one of the basement walls. They had metal support beams put in place and included the report from the engineer that stated there was no strucutral deficiency but beams could be put in as a preventative measure. We then had our own engineer check it out and he concurred that the beams had not been necessary but it certainly didn't hurt to have them there. There were a couple of leaky pipes that were fixed and other small, normal maintenance type items noted in the disclosure. So, I don't know if they deliberately left off items about the roof or if they really didn't think there was an issue.

I think because the disclosure was so thorough, we were lulled into thinking there wasn't anything additional to be found. When the HI didn't mention anything remarkable in the attic, we assumed there was actually nothing remarkable in the attic.

Logic, that is excellent advice and I wish I would have had that back in March!

I think before agreeing to arbitration (and paying the fee), you should find out if the Home Inspector carries professional insurance (more particularly, an Errors and Omissions policy) and if he does, file a claim against the policy.

That's bad news about the Relo company also, because that's another layer between you and the people who would certainly have known about the roof repairs. In other words, the Relo company probably didn't know about the roof repairs -- or very plausibly wouldn't have known unless the former owners had told them. So if the Relo company was your legal seller, you'd have a tough time going after them using the logic that they "must have known"...

We hired a HI prior to making an offer on a house (and we didn't make an offer by the way because of too many problems) but my experience with him, as nice as he was, was he was also very evasive on some of the questions I asked him - mostly saying well if you aren't comfortable don't make an offer - rather than explaining a specific problem or finding of his - and on issues regarding the major systems, the report was filled with caveats about getting specific professionals to check out the systems like the boiler and the plumbling, etc. What I learned was that the next time I am going to hire specific trades to check those items that concern us the most.

We've already been through the house I am going to bid on at the foreclosure auction to check for structural issues - but with no electricity and no water - we can't check the systems out - here's hoping the price leaves us some room for the inevitable surprises. I've got this emotional and time commitment to this house now, it's going to be painful if the auction price is outside our comfort zone.

MP

Again, people need to understand that the HI is a GENERALISTas in general practitioner. Just as with a medical GP, he will tell you if something is amiss, and refer you on the specialist that handles that particular issue for further evaluation. An HI can't be all-knowing...it is not humanly possible.

A house is a very complex structure, and given that home inspectors cant spend days in the home, dismantling items, and tearing out sheetrock, people need to be aware of the limitations of such an inspection by virtue of the fact that the house is not yours for the inspector to do with as you may wish.
He can only tell you about what is visible on the day of inspection. He can only tell you if the systems are operating...or not. He can't tell you why, how to repair, or cost...as he is not licensed in each specific discipline...and he is not an estimator.

That said, one could of course hire someone from each trade...but you are talking hiring at minimum 5 or 6 people...then there is radon, mold, septic, termit, etc...

That said, if your state regulates the profession, as they are not licensed HI's, chances are that their findings may not be valid for a RE transaction...as they are not legally permitted to perform a home inspection, and, they stand to profit by telling you something needs repair..aka conflict of interest.

In addition, most sellers will not take kindly to a team of people descending upon their home...and chances are that none of the tradesman carry E&O. Most assuredly, they will not have an inspection agreement for you to reviewand you will be VERY hard pressed in terms of recourse if they are wrong in their findings.

Last but not least, coordinating all to show on the same day at the same time should be interestingespecially since contractors are notorious for no showing.

This is why the profession of home inspection existsand one can indeed obtain a professional, thorough and meaningful inspection if one is realistic about how much can be ascertained by a non-invasive non-destructive inspection, and if one practices due diligence to the fullest extent.

Thanks again for the responses. DH and I are still unsure about what we are going to do, if anything. The HI is bonded and insured, but upon checking, the only way to file a claim is to first go through mediation (which costs the minimum $1350). I can file a complain with the state licensing board, but upon checking the cases for the last couple of years, there are only a couple against HI and they involve being convicted of felonies and having their licenses revoked or limited, so I don't think that is really an option for us.

DH talked again with ASHI (who, incidentally, have been extremely helpful!) and they gave us the name of a company that gives "second opinions" so to speak. For a small fee this guy will take a look at the pictures we took and tell us if the HI should have noted it. Just after talking to him on the phone he indicated that the failure to note the exhaust fans venting direclty into the attic and marking the structure as trusses rather than rafters is negligence. Honestly, I don't particularly care about those things - it's more the structure I'm concerned with. I'm not sure if we'll go forward with the 2nd opinion or not.

In his last response to us, the HI seemed to imply that we put the 2x4s there ourselves after we purchased the home, which is untrue, of course, but since we don't have pictures of the attic when he did the inspection, I suppose we have no way of proving that.

The most interesting thing, though, is that ASHI wants to see his responses to us. When DH mentioned that he is implying we are lying they really took note of that and said that goes against their very strict customer service standards. They can revoke his membership for that. I'm not sure how important ASHI membership is, but it seems that may be the way for us to get the most satisfaction. As I've said, at this point it isn't so much the money it's more his unprofessional response that is getting us so riled up.

"They can revoke his membership for that. I'm not sure how important ASHI membership is, but it seems that may be the way for us to get the most satisfaction. As I've said, at this point it isn't so much the money it's more his unprofessional response that is getting us so riled up."

If in the end ASHI actually revokes this characters membership, please let me know...as ASHI allows unlicensed, illegally operating HI's to be listed on their site for consumers to hire in NJ....so, IMO, this would be a first.

That said, one more point that I neglected to point out is that a thorough HI report should include digital photos...which would have been a major plus here in proving that the HI is lying...

That said, is he also trying to say that you changed the vent pipes as well??

That said, chances are that the relo company does have digital photos in the HI report that they commissioned for the house...perhaps you can get them to send you a copy...and, if there are attic photos inclusive of the 2x4s, you can at least get the satisfaction of proving he lied...and I would most definitely report him to the state none the less.

Last but not least, as the 2x4's are a structural repair, it can't hurt to check with the township to see if a permit was filed by the previous owners...chances are slim, but if so, it would prove they were there pre-purchase.

BTW...did you sign a contract with THIS HI...or the one who you thought you had hired?

If so...when did you sign it? If it was post inspection, you may have grounds to negate the arbitrations clause....
I still think you should contact an attorney to see what can be done...

Logic, there were no digital photos of the inspection. There were some digital photos from the relo company, but none of the attic space.

I'll have DH check and see if a permit was pulled for the 2x4s although it really looks like a homemade "repair".

I believe the contract was signed with the inspection company, not a specific inspector, but I'll check on that.

We have the name and number of our lawyer standing by...

Thanks again for the feedback!

When you say "construction arbitration" do you mean the company name? If so the link below should convince you not to arbitrate. If it's not the same company I'd still avoid arbitration. It can be very expensive as someone said, far in excess of your repair costs. Arbitrators are often repeat players with the inspectors, builders, and so on, and are often biased in their favor so they can keep getting more business from them. I don't know ANYONE who's had a good experience in arbitration as a conumer, but I do know of people who were able to settle complaints when arbitration wasn't involved. Personally, if this is like most inspector contracts, all you could "win" would be the fee you paid for the inspection anyway.

Fathen, yes I believe that is the company we are supposed to go through according to the contract. The fee certainly seemed outrageous to us ($1,350 plus travel and time for the arbitrator). Thank you for that information! We are still not sure what we are going to do. DH and I are feeling pretty "done with it" at the moment but I'm sure our ire will be raised again when we write out the check to our roofing contractor, lol!