You could say that home inspectors use a vague guideline to justify their findings, which can often leave consumers confused. States which regulate inspectors and home inspection organizations, institute a set of guidelines called a Standard of Practice (SOP) which inspectors use to examine a home. Typically the SOP includes a list of minimum requirements that inspectors are encouraged to surpass. But for many home buyers and sellers, these inspection guidelines are foreign and difficult to understand.

Setting new standards
The state of Texas is currently reviewing its SOP, and it may be that next year we will have a new procedure in place. These guidelines, however, do not specify the varying situations that must be noted in the inspection report.

For example, Rule 535.228 (a)(8) states that the inspector shall “report as in need of repair conditions and symptoms that may indicate the possibility of water penetration that are present and visible, such as improper grading around foundation walls or plumbing leaks....”

Taking a look at one part, you could ask what is improper grading? The rule presents no definition. Most inspectors may use a code from the 2003 International Residential Code (IRC) that states four inches for a brick veneer. Some inspectors may rely on the new 2006 IRC, which says it should be six inches. A homeowner may find that a pest control expert will suggest at least three inches. The differences in these measurements may seem insignificant, but they can greatly affect you during the sale of the home.

A rule to define a rule
John Cahill, who is a former Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) inspector chairman, recently presented his own thoughts on the issue in a detailed blog post. In his post, Cahill recommends “creating within the TREC rule a Request for Interpretation (RFI) procedure. The procedure should respond to the licensee or public in a timely manner. The response should be preserved and reviewed annually for permanent inclusion in the SOP. The interpretations should be made available to all licensees and the public via Internet. The interim document could be called ‘commentary,’ although it may not be enforceable until adopted as rule in the Standard.”

Cahill’s recommendation allows consumers the ability to question what the standard means. There have been methods to question inspectors and their reports before this, but Cahill’s recommendation means that the standard itself could be questioned and then defined. The consumer can then have a clearer interpretation of the procedures behind a SOP. This proposal has its pros and cons. SOPs are meant to be vague, so an inspector can make the finding in his report based upon his own understanding of the current industry standard.

More consumer access
Since updating SOPs can be a long process, it’s not a bad idea to allow an inspector leeway to make a determination based on current definition. The flipside is that it’s also important for the consumer to know that inspectors will follow one guideline with a specific definition when producing their findings.

I would like the consumer to be able to have this clarification process at their disposal. An open process in the industry can only improve how inspectors work. I think that such a process should be in the hands of those who understand current building standards, such as an inspector’s committee. If a form of this rule is adopted in Texas, you may see other states follow suit. A uniformed standard will only help to simplify the process and provide consumers with a better understanding of the inspection process.

Frank Schulte-Ladbeck, Professional Real Estate Inspector