Seriously, what good are home inspectors, if they don't look at anything but the basics?

[Elixer]

This is pissing me off.
Paid $600 for a "home inspection", they said all is fine.

12 years later, have to do some remodeling & things, and everywhere I open up, I see stuff that obviously isn't up to code at the time the "home inspection" occurred.

Junction boxes that have NO wire nuts, only twisted together, and taped.
Electrical switches with NO ground wire attached to a ground, it is just shoved in the plastic box.
Under side of roof has a 12" x 12" area missing, as in, there is a 12 x 12" cutout, then some black paper(?) covering said hole.
All bathroom fans exhaust into the attic, and one of those fans was covered by insulation.
Attic insulation that is only 3" deep.
Attic wiring that isn't secured near the boxes, and, just laying around, and those damn junction boxes with no wire nuts...
Obvious design flaw of a balcony, since it can't drain water anyplace except to bricks?
Blueprints clearly show 2" x 6" studs for joist & trusses, they were actually 2" x 4", and they also show 16" between those, but, they are actually 24".
I could go on...

So, is this the norm for a "home inspection"? How the hell did the guy miss all this stuff?
House was built in the 80's, only had 1 owner that stayed for 3 months before they had to move.

 

[NutBucket]

Did you do the inspection with him? Remember his job is not too take anything apart so there's no way he could have known about the contents of the junction boxes and ungrounded switches. Design flaws are generally not safety issues or sign of structural flaws, etc. IMHO The inspector is looking for gross safety/structural issues. How could he have known the joists and trusses weren't built to the print? Obviously they passed the building inspections too.

 

[Elixer]

Sadly, no.
I was under the impression that they are supposed to poke around in everything, and make sure everything is up to code, otherwise, I don't really see the point of not looking at all outlets & junction boxes to make sure all wires are fine.
IMO, not having a ground on a switch box IS a gross safety violation, as is twisting wires with only tape.

But, apparently, you are correct that isn't in their job description.

A home inspector determines the condition of a structure, whereas an appraiser determines the value of a property. In the United States, although not all states or municipalities regulate home inspectors, there are various professional associations for home inspectors that provide education, training, and networking opportunities. A professional home inspection is an examination of the current condition of a house.
It is not an inspection to verify compliance with appropriate codes; building inspection is a term often used for building code compliance inspections in the United States. A similar but more complicated inspection of commercial buildings is a property condition assessment. Home inspections identify problems but building diagnostics identifies solutions to the found problems and their predicted outcomes.

Heck, I am also curious as to how it passed the building inspection as well, if blueprints say something different than what was done.

 

[pcgeek11]

I agree home inspectors are a joke.

 

[NutBucket]

As a seller I wouldn't want you taking stuff apart to inspect. Would you?

Also, a lot of building inspectors are useless as one of my coworkers will gladly tell you. So it's basically up to you to make sure the contractor builds exactly to print if that's what you want/expect.

 

[Yakk]

Inspections can only look at visible defects, or inquire/document if they see a potentially problematic symptom of something hidden.

BTW, to know if you are dealing with a "Good" home inspector; ask them their fees as a Professional Court Expert. Only the best inspectors will be an expert witness in a court of law, the rest will decline this service.

 

[boomerang]

We recently sold our home. The first deal fell through and it sold on the second. Two home inspections done. First inspection generated a 144 page report with pictures and tons and tons of items found. That buyer wanted only two items dealt with. One related to an electrical sub-panel in the garage and the other some staining around one of the two roof vents in the finished garage.

Second inspection turned up nothing.

One extreme to the other. Both inspectors got paid by their respective buyers.

There is something to be learned from this experience but I'm not 100% certain what it is.

 

[NetWareHead]

I think home inspectors get a bad rap IMO. I dont think they are useless. I find them useful but you have to know what background the inspector comes from and what his expertise is. The sad truth is that almost anybody can become a home inspector and render inspection reports with little substance that miss blatantly obvious problems. I have a good inspector that took 3+ hours to inspect an 1800 sq ft house. The opposing real estate agent was so pissed at the amount of time we were taking and how much detailed analysis was being performed whereas I had the day off and nowhere else to be. The best types of home inspectors IMO are the geeky engineery types that focus on details and love to talk about what they know. Or, retired guys with a construction or trade background who are looking for easier work.

As said, home inspectors wont do a destructive analysis of the structure. Some of the items you listed are impossible to ascertain unless walls are opened etc... There are also time constraints to be followed too. Home inspectors will open up the breaker panels and any subpanels but typically wont open up each and every junction box. I found open-air splices secured with scotch tape when I tore open walls. I surely cant blame the inspector for missing that.

There are times when the inspector's knowledge is insufficient and you have to call in reinforcements. I had serious reservations about the electrical system in my recent purchase and the home inspector was the one to find live knob and tube in my basement. Good sharp eyes too. There was a 6 inch length of old school cable and one porcelain knob in a remote corner that he found. Put his tester to it and it was live. Illegally spliced into romex (no box) and fed back to the panel. I ended up demanding a follow up electrical inspection, this time with a master electrician. We found way more knob and tube than I anticipated and got the seller to reduce the price of the house.

Same with plumbing. Inspector found one of the cast iron dwv piping was sealed with what looked like hardened epoxy resin. Presumably to seal a crack or corrosion. A supplemental plumbing inspection followed.

My home inspector said my roof was in good shape and I had between 10-15 years left. A year after I bought the house, I found some shingles had blown off and were resting in my driveway. The roofer said my roof had maybe 5 years left and needed a replacement. Inspector declared he does not do roofs and doesnt carry the insurance that lets him get up on roofs so I cant really blame him. He only does a visual inspection from ground level.

 

[snoopy7548]

This is pissing me off.
Paid $600 for a "home inspection", they said all is fine.

12 years later, have to do some remodeling & things, and everywhere I open up, I see stuff that obviously isn't up to code at the time the "home inspection" occurred.

Junction boxes that have NO wire nuts, only twisted together, and taped.
Electrical switches with NO ground wire attached to a ground, it is just shoved in the plastic box.
Under side of roof has a 12" x 12" area missing, as in, there is a 12 x 12" cutout, then some black paper(?) covering said hole.
All bathroom fans exhaust into the attic, and one of those fans was covered by insulation.
Attic insulation that is only 3" deep.
Attic wiring that isn't secured near the boxes, and, just laying around, and those damn junction boxes with no wire nuts...
Obvious design flaw of a balcony, since it can't drain water anyplace except to bricks?
Blueprints clearly show 2" x 6" studs for joist & trusses, they were actually 2" x 4", and they also show 16" between those, but, they are actually 24".
I could go on...

So, is this the norm for a "home inspection"? How the hell did the guy miss all this stuff?
House was built in the 80's, only had 1 owner that stayed for 3 months before they had to move.

Sounds like you got a dud. Not all are bad, and it's recommended to go along with them and ask questions.

This probably doesn't help, but for comparison my inspector removed the breaker panel and showed me all of the wiring inside, checked every single outlet (interior and exterior) with a ground tester, went into the attic, and basically checked every little nook and cranny in and outside the house. It was a medium-sized house, 1560 sq. ft., new construction, and the inspection still took about 3-3.5 hours to complete. The best part was that he brought bottles of water and snacks.

Did your realtor recommend your inspector? Conventional wisdom says not to use your realtor's suggested inspector. My realtor gave me a whole list which covered nearly all inspectors in the area, so I researched about ten of them and decided on the one with the best reviews/most experience.

 

[Dranoche]

The home inspector probably should have caught some of that, like the bathroom fans dumping into the attic and the apparent hole in the roof where a repair was probably performed, but home inspections are not exhaustive. Additionally, everything only needs to meet the code which was governing at the time of construction, so unless something is visually clearly unsafe they aren't going to note non-conformance with the current code. They also would not review original plans.

The original building inspector should have caught discrepancies with the plans, but municipal inspectors can often be pretty lazy and may only perform a rudimentary visual check for conformance with code, if they check it at all.

 

[Elixer]

Sounds like you got a dud. Not all are bad, and it's recommended to go along with them and ask questions.

This probably doesn't help, but for comparison my inspector removed the breaker panel and showed me all of the wiring inside, checked every single outlet (interior and exterior) with a ground tester, went into the attic, and basically checked every little nook and cranny in and outside the house. It was a medium-sized house, 1560 sq. ft., new construction, and the inspection still took about 3-3.5 hours to complete. The best part was that he brought bottles of water and snacks.

Did your realtor recommend your inspector? Conventional wisdom says not to use your realtor's suggested inspector. My realtor gave me a whole list which covered nearly all inspectors in the area, so I researched about ten of them and decided on the one with the best reviews/most experience.

Would have loved your inspector.

The realtor was a family friend, and they setup everything while I was away on road trips.

As a seller I wouldn't want you taking stuff apart to inspect. Would you?

Also, a lot of building inspectors are useless as one of my coworkers will gladly tell you. So it's basically up to you to make sure the contractor builds exactly to print if that's what you want/expect.

If I was a homeowner that is selling a house, I wouldn't have any issues with a inspector opening up every wall plate and junction box there is in the place. Want to go to the attic? Fine. Crawlspace under the house? Go for it.
As long as they don't damage anything, or track insulation or mud, I would have no objections at all.

 

[NutBucket]

They can go in the attic, crawlspace, whatever. Mine did. But the point is they will not take anything apart. Like you said, the risk is them damaging something. I wouldn't take that risk.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sadly, no.
I was under the impression that they are supposed to poke around in everything, and make sure everything is up to code, otherwise, I don't really see the point of not looking at all outlets & junction boxes to make sure all wires are fine.
IMO, not having a ground on a switch box IS a gross safety violation, as is twisting wires with only tape.

But, apparently, you are correct that isn't in their job description.




Heck, I am also curious as to how it passed the building inspection as well, if blueprints say something different than what was done.

Too much liability if they poke or open or disassemble stuff and can't reassemble. Point of a home inspection is to make your lender more comfortable

 

[mindless1]

As a seller I wouldn't want you taking stuff apart to inspect. Would you?

Not really relevant, anyone trying to hide something wouldn't want an inspector to find it.

Yes the requirements of a home inspector are a joke, and it's ludicrous what it costs given the half assed effort made. Those clowns possess $20/hr skill set at best so for a couple hour inspection, $40 should be the payment.

We are now in a weird era where people will earn a title only seeking to exploit and cheat people. It is common in the home market where there are thousands of dollars to lose that they play on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

You should not have to go along with them and babysit their work. That's what you do if you payed a rent a kid instead of a pro at a premium rate. You can't expect them to be fortune tellers but you should expect them to do the amount of work worthy of their fee.

If the homeowner objects, fine, then their fee should be reduced because they didn't do a thorough job, and this should be noted as a reason why the home selling price has to be reduced several thousand dollars to cover whatever the homeowner sought to hide.

There is NOT "too much liability" of they poke and disassemble. This is the point of having someone qualified for their profession, that they know what they're doing. If something crumbles apart from a mere inspection, it was in severe decay and should be considered a loss by the homeowner trying to screw the buyer either deliberately or through ignorance.

Remember something. Home inspector is not a lofty goal in life. There are some builders with a lifetime of trade experience who have essentially retired into this position, then there are the assclowns who you wouldn't trust to build it in the first place so why in the heck would you trust them to diagnose it after the fact?

 

[nathanddrews]

Sorry yours sucked. I'm pretty sure that it's mainly an exercise for the mortgage lender, insurance company, and local authority (city/county/state) to ensure that they have properly evaluated the price of the home for any property taxes and collateral or claims. Check/recheck square footage, number of bathrooms, bedrooms, state of utilities, signs of damage/wear.

We had a pretty good experience with our inspector, it was $300 and we got this neat little hardcover binder containing all the issues/problems he found along with listings of local contractors, DIY tips and tricks, as well as details about the permitting process. For the first year, we use that as a fix-it guide to deal with all the little things he found.

As I understand it, we could have paid a lot more to have someone rip open walls and do extensive invasive tests and then repair everything back to the way it was, but really the best you can do is surface-level review to look for symptoms, not causes.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Not really relevant, anyone trying to hide something wouldn't want an inspector to find it.

Yes the requirements of a home inspector are a joke, and it's ludicrous what it costs given the half assed effort made. Those clowns possess $20/hr skill set at best so for a couple hour inspection, $40 should be the payment.

We are now in a weird era where people will earn a title only seeking to exploit and cheat people. It is common in the home market where there are thousands of dollars to lose that they play on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

You should not have to go along with them and babysit their work. That's what you do if you payed a rent a kid instead of a pro at a premium rate. You can't expect them to be fortune tellers but you should expect them to do the amount of work worthy of their fee.

If the homeowner objects, fine, then their fee should be reduced because they didn't do a thorough job, and this should be noted as a reason why the home selling price has to be reduced several thousand dollars to cover whatever the homeowner sought to hide.

There is NOT "too much liability" of they poke and disassemble. This is the point of having someone qualified for their profession, that they know what they're doing. If something crumbles apart from a mere inspection, it was in severe decay and should be considered a loss by the homeowner trying to screw the buyer either deliberately or through ignorance.

Remember something. Home inspector is not a lofty goal in life. There are some builders with a lifetime of trade experience who have essentially retired into this position, then there are the assclowns who you wouldn't trust to build it in the first place so why in the heck would you trust them to diagnose it after the fact?

Problem with the liability part is the seller would have to sign off saying both realtors are not liable for damages, the home inspector and the buyers would likely need to set up a cash account to be held by a lawyer to cover any repairs needed to get the sellers home back in it's original condition if they back out of the sale. Imaging what disagreements would happen about a safety issue that needs to be addressed, what's the problem and what percent belongs to seller and what percent belongs to what the home inspector did. Also imagine the bickering about what and how any findings need to be addressed and imagine the risk to the sellers if it takes months to address the problems then the buyer backs out of the deal plus what happens if the persons house the sellers are buying fall thru because they need to sell their first home to be mortgage approved.
Sorry you had a crappy experience with the home inspector but their primary duty it to certify the house can be occupied and it's not going to fall apart in a few years to make the lender more comfortable.

 

[mindless1]

^ What are you considering these potential damages to be, if it was already a problem so there is no returning it to the prior state?

A safety issue is that of the home, not something the inspector did. We're not talking about rambo with a sledge hammer, just a thorough inspection.

Yes, there should be a disagreement if there is a problem found that causes the home to not sell until it's corrected. That's the whole point of uncovering problems, that the home does not sell until it's either corrected or price adjusted to reflect it.

Yes a buyer should back out of the deal if the homeowner is trying to price it as if there weren't problems, and should walk away if the home owner is trying to attach a lot of bullshit to the mere process of a thorough inspection. Cash account? Lawyer? Big warning sign to walk away, owner trying to hide something. If an inspector does damage, sue him like you would anyone else. S/he should be insured.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^ What are you considering these potential damages to be, if it was already a problem so there is no returning it to the prior state?

A safety issue is that of the home, not something the inspector did. We're not talking about rambo with a sledge hammer, just a thorough inspection.

Yes, there should be a disagreement if there is a problem found that causes the home to not sell until it's corrected. That's the whole point of uncovering problems, that the home does not sell until it's either corrected or price adjusted to reflect it.

Yes a buyer should back out of the deal if the homeowner is trying to price it as if there weren't problems, and should walk away if the home owner is trying to attach a lot of bullshit to the mere process of a thorough inspection. Cash account? Lawyer? Big warning sign to walk away. If an inspector does damage, sue him like you would anyone else.

If the inspector is going to get sued he simply won't take stuff apart. Point is a standard inspection is not intended to be a deep and through inspection if you want that you need to build it into the offer to buy.
Most sellers will find agreeing to something that is going to take an undetermined amount of time and an unqualified scope of work without any additional monies given will simply choose a buyer who doesn't want that type of a service.

 

[mindless1]

^ Then he doesn't get paid. It's not especially deep to find the issues mentioned at the start of this topic.

If the inspector doesn't want to earn $600, say $40 like I already wrote, then sure do it half assed then, and the word gets around that the inspection is a joke.

Any seller with comnon sense will agree to an inspection without any challenges. The only question is how lazy and unethical the inspector is (or isn't). I certainly don't mean to imply they're all bad, it's same situation as any profession.

Remember, $600. Earn it or find something else you'd rather actually do. That's more than enough money to be insured six ways till Sunday.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^ Then he doesn't get paid. It's not especially deep to find the issues mentioned at the start of this topic.

If the inspector doesn't want to earn $600, say $40 like I already wrote, then sure do it half assed then, and the word gets around that the inspection is a joke.

Any seller with comnon sense will agree to an inspection without any challenges. The only question is how lazy and unethical the inspector is (or isn't). I certainly don't mean to imply they're all bad, it's same situation as any profession.

Last post regarding this we're just not going to agree. $40 for an inspection even if it's a crappy one? Does the inspector live next door? 3-6 hours of work plus a commute plus the time to document it all for $40?

 

[NutBucket]

Any seller with comnon sense will agree to an inspection without any challenges. The only question is how lazy and unethical the inspector is (or isn't). I certainly don't mean to imply they're all bad, it's same situation as any profession.

Again, inspect all you like but don't take anything apart. Taking things apart opens up a whole new can of worms. Nobody is suggesting an inspector shouldn't climb in the attic or in the crawlspace but that's still quite a few steps away from checking the contents of junction boxes. There's no reason to unless there's some obvious problem at which point an inspector is very likely to suggest calling in an electrician.

 

[mindless1]

Last post regarding this we're just not going to agree. $40 for an inspection even if it's a crappy one? Does the inspector live next door? 3-6 hours of work plus a commute plus the time to document it all for $40?

If someone really spent 3-6 hours and didn't even peek in the attic, yeah $40 is generous. You're not paying $600 for someone to find nothing more than a realtor could.

 

[Humpy]

Home inspectors would have no problem with dis-assembly or destructive inspections if there was a market for it. Inspectors operate based on the demands placed upon them.

 

[Elixer]

Overall, I would have to argue that "Home inspection" isn't aptly named.
It should be called something that tells you exactly what they are doing, something like "Basic Home inspection", and there should be some kind of a checklist of what they did and didn't inspect.

 

[mxnerd]

Yeah, home inspection is a joke. So my state don't issue any license to home inspectors.

And $600? It's ridiculous.

Like others have mentioned, the inspector does not open anything to check internals, so how good is that?