I don’t do Re-Inspections very often.
I like to maintain the illusion that it is because my reports are so detailed and well written. I can only hope my reports describe so completely what is necessary, that everyone “lives happily ever after.” Of course, I really don’t have any idea why, but it likely has more to do with the fact that most people don’t want to pay the additional fee to have me back.
Re-Inspects can be tricky for the inspector because what if the inspector finds something the second time that they didn’t see the first time? Ouch!
In addition to this, we are being called back to check on the work done by a “Higher Power” (Licensed XYZ Contractor) and then we are asked to sign off on their work.
This reason alone is why some inspectors won’t do Re-Inspections at all.
First of all, lets discuss finding something the second time that we missed the first time.
While no inspector likes to admit that they miss anything—-we all do. We are only there for a small amount of time and site conditions can be vastly different at the time of the second visit. (For example the house has gone from completely furnished and occupied to vacant and empty.)
Rather than seeing the inspection as an “End” in itself, the inspection can (should?) be seen as a big first step toward “building an understanding” of the home—–with additional info likely (or should I say “guaranteed”) to follow. So, the Re-Inspection might be seen as an opportunity to add to that overall body of information. That said, the things discovered the second time better not be of the “Deal Killer” variety or something of consequence. That could certainly be a problem.
The second issue, regarding checking up on the work done by contractors with supposedly more “authority” or “credentials” (regarding their particular trade) than the inspector does. If this was a realistic argument we couldn’t justify doing any new construction inspections, because all of the work was supposedly done by contractors with qualifications that trump ours.
When contractors come in to make the repairs we call for, there is no way to know who’s interests they have in mind—-sometimes it is obvious that it is only their own. It is a little different matter if the buyers are hiring the contractor and paying for it themselves.
But even so, I see no reason an inspector can’t do a “visual” inspection of the completed work the same way they look at work done 1 year ago or 100 years ago. Why would anyone think we would be responsible for declaring the work was done “properly?”
We often cannot tell whether the work was done properly no matter when the work was done.
All we can really do is state what we can see—-“repairs are evident”—-or, that there was “no evidence of repairs.”
I know that people would love it if we could just wave our magic wands or turn on our x-ray vision and make “categorical” declarations about things. This just is not possible—-all we can do is tell the story of what we see. What people do with that story is up to them.
***
Charles Buell, Seattle Home Inspector
If you enjoyed this post, and would like to get notices of new posts to my blog, please subscribe via email in the little box to the right. I promise NO spamming of your email
Assuming a contractor will make proper repairs, much less any at all are an illusion. There are lots of inherent problems in this including incompetent or unqualified contractors, Seller just wanting to patch things up to get it sold, Real estate agents using their handyman buddy and providing bogus receipts. There are times when a re inspection is needed but I have rules.
1. I only stick to the repair items listed in the contingency removal. (if I notice something detrimental that I missed the first time (which is doubtful), I would inform them of that).
2. I don’t grade or guarantee the repair. But will fail if it doesn’t meet “standard workmanlike manor” or is not done at all.
3. I don’t advise on how the repair should be done by the “expert”.
In the original inspection I advise buyers to state in their inspection contingency removal that all work be professionally, properly and permanently corrected and subject to buyers re-inspection and satisfaction. This statement goes a long way when the buyers are conveying their expectations to the seller.
All contract and repair work should follow the same contractor vetting practices as applied by anyone who is contracting for repairs outside of a real estate transaction.
Daniel, I agree with pretty much all of what you have added. Regarding #3 I will on occasion give advice if it is in areas I am comfortable with—it can save a lot of time if all parties have some idea of what the repair should look like.
For sure, I give advice in regards to the outcome or expected objective, especially things that have a right way and wrong way of doing things. But I don’t instruct contractors on how to reach that objective. That would be telling them how to do what they are supposed to know already. Not to mention the pass the buck liability of “we did it like the inspector said.
I hear you—seems like some want a detailed instruction manual—when they should already have the manual 🙂
true dat! They either honestly don’t know what to do or the mentality is if we fix it like the inspector tells us to then he’ll pass it and we’re off the hook.
Nope, that’s a trick bag I won’t get caught in.