TOPIC: Re-Inspections

Interesting comments. I will NOT do re-inspections. Reason being, all repairs are the responsibility of the contractor. By inspecting HIS repair, I am certifying correctness putting the liability on myself.
We are professional generalists. They are the experts. This is why they have to warranty their work.

The ONLY thing I would agree to do would be to say Yes, a  repair was performed, but I give NO warranty that it was repaired properly.

I have done 3 re-inspections on a single home.  In each instance, something on the list was not completed.  The first re-inspection took 20 minutes.  The 2nd took 5 minutes.  The third took 2 minutes.  Total income for 27 minutes work?  $748.50.  Client paid for the first re-inspection, seller paid for the 2nd and 3rd.

There was no more liability than with the original inspection.  First trip:  GFCI was present and tested ok.  Generator installation signed off permit and sticker was present.  Water pressure regulator was installed along with new main shut off valve.  Holes in firewall were not repaired.  Deck boards were not replaced.  Second trip:  Deck boards were replaced.  Holes in firewall were not repaired.  Third trip:  Holes in firewall were repaired.

If I could only do re-inspections, I would have more time for golf and the dogs.  ;D

Thanks allot that helps, it seems that 2 out of the three inspectors that are here don't charge for the first re inspection and the other guy generally says he doesn't have time to do them but charges $75 if he does. I guess i won't charge for now i need to be competitive?

Hi all - I have to say I really enjoy reading the different perspectives here they all have their unique validity.

My experience has been as follows...

- Re-inspect; to do or not to do?  --  Why not do!?  I'm not sure that I am reading Mr. McMahon's post right, in one sentence it says; "I will NOT..." and then later it says that he would with stipulations or clarifications.  Not picking on you Kevin, but just as an example being concerned about "certifying correctness putting the liability on myself" is definitely valid, but only if that's what the report says.  I certainly wouldn't claim any type of acceptance or use the word "certified" this infers a code compliance or engineering approval and this is not verbiage for a home inspector to be using.  In my humble opinion too many home inspectors think they are code compliance inspectors and try to play as such when they should stick to the state required SOP like glue.  Venturing off and providing details and code quotes fouls up the expectations of our Clients, it is too bad that the SOP's don't include the statement; "For the service of General Home Inspection you will stick to this SOP!!  If you provide IR, ducting inspections, air sampling, etc. these services shall be agreed upon separately."

If I report that a truss cord is broken I don't blame the Client for not wanting to go scale through the trusses and for asking me to do it, but I report whether the condition was corrected (as apparently claimed by the Seller) and clearly state that in no way am I accepting, certifying, or guaranteeing the work done.  I already recommended (in my initial report) that the Client vet and hire a licensed contractor in good standing and that is proficient in the work required and that they consult an Professional Engineer when repairs include structural deficiencies, so I expect that they did that and unless the work is not completed or obviously substandard the line item on the repair addendum and within my re-inspection report is marked; "COMPLETE".  The broken cord was either addressed or not. 

- To charge or not to charge?  --  You have to charge unless you've priced your initial inspection to include "X" hrs of re-inspection time.  Don't underestimate or undervalue your time!  A home inspector provides a service based on a learned/acquired skill that he or she has invested in, don't be afraid to ask for compensation for your time.

I followed that up with that caveat because when I explain that it does not guarantee the work was done properly, they ask why not?....and it pretty much ends the discussion with the realtor or client whomever called. Not to mention no one wants to pay for it. One think it's the homeowners responsibility and the other thinks it's the client that should pay because it's their request.  I'd just rather not get involved. To me, a receipt with guarantee from a contractor should suffice.

I followed that up with that caveat because when I explain that it does not guarantee the work was done properly, they ask why not?....and it pretty much ends the discussion with the realtor or client whomever called. Not to mention no one wants to pay for it. One think it's the homeowners responsibility and the other thinks it's the client that should pay because it's their request.  I'd just rather not get involved. To me, a receipt with guarantee from a contractor should suffice.

Hey I don't blame ya Kevin and I get what you're saying, but I think that if you thought it through a little you could answer that; "Why not?" question and as far as who is responsible to pay...well not to sound nasty, but that isn't your problem.  The Seller and Buyer have to work that out, the Buyer could request that the repairs be done and that a $XX credit be issued to cover a re-inspection.  It is easy to become emotionally attached to this work and to the Client, but you have to maintain a smart business model and approach.

"Why not?" - - I've gotten this question before and rather than let the call/conversation go cold look at it as an opportunity to educate the customer; which is always good.  This effort is not good just for you, but also for our industry.  Clients need to understand that we are not Professional/Licensed...Engineers, Electricians, Plumbers, Framers, HVAC Techs, etc. and that we are not code compliance inspectors - this seems to be the most common misconception.

Generally speaking we are individuals with an eye for detail and with the ability to look at elements logically and tell if there is something that isn't right or that doesn't look right and that needs further evaluation.  There are very few Code Compliance Inspectors, even in a single trade such as electrical, that know the electrical code and all of its revision and what applied at various time periods, let alone an Inspector (such as a home inspector) that knows all of the codes and their revisions.

As you said, and I agree, the receipt and/or a statement from the contractor is what should hold water, but I still think that there is value in the Home Inspector viewing the repair and stating that it was in fact done, it was not done, or that the repair appears insufficient if poor workmanship is observed. 

One more thought is that major repairs, such as those related to structural deficiencies, should undergo an engineer's review prior to be executed - that stamped sketch/drawing is all the guarantee that the Client should need.