TOPIC: One comment to appear in multiple sections.

I tend to go a similar route as Steve and Dan mentioned. I don't carbon copy comments just because of the repetitive nature of the report I would end up with. Also I personally think it make a report look a bit canned. If multiple areas show differing results which stem from the same problem, then I report on what I see in each section(visible defects/damage) and put the extra details in the first section the client would come to when reading the report. All the other sections will have an added note which refers back to that first mention of the problem. e.g. "See Gutter Section for further details." Seems more professional to reference yourself then to just repeat yourself. IMHO

This works pretty well most of the time since my report is laid out exterior, systems & interior. And many problems at the exterior affect the other two and many problems with the systems affect the interior. When it works out you get a report which first lays out the major cause of the problem and then reminds the client of the importance of the problem by showing them the results of it.

What do they mean by "system"?

If I have a plumbing leak I need to report the leaking component in plumbing.

If the leak caused ceiling damage, I need to report ceiling damage caused by plumbing leak.

If the leak went undetected for a long period of time, I need the report structural damage in the structural section, caused by a plumbing leak.

Etc. etc. etc.

Each "system" does not deserve the same narrative other than it is associated with a plumbing leak (noted in the plumbing section).

We don't need to know all about the plumbing leak (as described in the plumbing section) in the structural section, or the electrical section, or the interior section. Each affected "system" should have its own narrative as to have the leak affects that system.

I simply do this by describing the entire scenario and paste the appropriate paragraphs in the appropriate sections.

This is not "hunt and pick" scenario. This is a significant issue as it spans numerous component systems. It warrants a completely narrated description (as far as I'm concerned).

If your state won't let you put the entire scenario under the most appropriate section of your report, then simply break down the paragraphs and put them where they belong.

I would assume "system", "component", "item", or "section" are often synonymous with each other between different state SOPs. David did a better job of describing my own method than I did. If a problem has caused defects then each of those defects need to be reported in their appropriate part of the report. I only differ with David's description in that I wouldn't put everything in one section as I would still have to mention it in each affected system. Blame it on my state SOP, reducing liability, reducing callbacks or my own anal retentive nature, it just seems better to make mention of visible issues in their corresponding sections of the report. All in one section would make for a clearer understanding of a problem but my SOP doesn't support it and I just don't care for the repetition. Like David said, if you can do it then why not. This is a good topic because it illustrates the role of the home inspector to analyze the interaction of different systems and their combined affect on the home. This is why I am against the use of subcontractors for inspecting systems required by the SOP. They won't consider how those systems play off of one another.�

In response to the original question, if there are enough inspectors who need it, it might be helpful. �I'm just not sure if the implementation would be easier than simply cutting and pasting or just having similar comments in those systems which tend to interact most often. ��

I have been fighting redundancy in report writing for many years and I am not thrilled about adding it to my reports.

Dom has a big job working on getting rid of it, I don't like to see him heading the other direction.


As far as I'm concerned, Texas is "over-the-top" on a lot of home inspection issues. If streamline report writing is necessary, maybe it should be taken up with Texas!

Cameron: the only time I would generally put an issue "all in one place" is if it is a less significant issue.

I normally put the entire scenario into either the most prominent component (in this case, plumbing because it all started from a plumbing leak) or where it will be first read in the report sequence. It's easy enough to change the order and put plumbing upfront also.

I think I would spend more time trying to "hunt and choose" where I wanted all of the duplicated verbiage to go then to hit Ctl C and Clt V in every subsequent report section.

When you use multiple listings of the same verbiage from one point, you're going to have to go back and make sure it got there so it's going to take even more time in the long run than going to the section and putting it exactly where you want it and make any additional editing to the paragraph (which a good inspection report would include).

I think there is miscommunications between home inspector's and the state of Texas sometimes. I'm sure the state wants the issues covered in each sequential component section of the report because in fact those components have been affected by the initial leak. They don't want a lazy real estate agent sending out the "interior section" of the report without the "plumbing section". I do not think they are requesting redundancy in each section, rather they want you to address the issue in each section as it affects that particular section. I also don't believe they want a lazy home inspector to cut and paste the same verbiage in each section without specifically addressing how it affects that section.

Issues like this take up one to two pages of inspection report to write it up the first time around. I am not going to duplicate two pages of the exact same thing in every potential section.

I had job last week where there was stacked stone on a front section of the house (a common water intrusion problem around here), gutter downspouts that cascade water from five rooflines to the same gutter attached at the stacked stone, improper use of flashing, lack of kick out flashing, undersize gutter system, improper site drainage at the gutter downspouts; moisture in the crawlspace, excessive use of caulking, water intrusion to the interior, water intrusion to a Windows system, water intrusion at a structural roof detail, water intrusion through a plumbing penetration, water intrusion into an exterior electrical junction box. The condition had the potential of excessive deterioration of the roofing system. Excessive water cascading down the front of the stacked stone. Water overflowing concrete flat work.

What section of the report isn't affected by this condition?

I spent 2 1/2 pages (without pictures) on this issue and I put it in one section. If they don't read that section which is 90% of the report issues, they're not going to read it in the subsequent 12 sections of the report. I'm also not going to break up this scenario into all the different sections because they will be bouncing around like a ping-pong ball trying to figure it out. By the way; I didn't include a summary page report. When asked why I didn't, I told them that there is no summary, they need to read the whole report.

This is similar to a "room by room" versus a "component by component" report format. A room by room format on an 11,000 ft.? house would be unreadable but can work quite efficiently in a 1,100 ft.? house.

I am sure that Texas and I would not get along, but I do not pander to a state legislation driven by an outside industry's personal interests.

In my state, I can add one line that says my client does not want the state format in their report and I would be covered.

The reason for state control is to ensure that the client receives the information intended, but in many states it is driven by the personal interests of another industry who could care less about that client.

Hey Guys I know this is a late reply but I am in process of being a new HIP convert.

The talk about leaking at a drain as mentioned and causing multiple areas to be affected have been answered with one statement addressing the issue. 

But I would like to know if I can put a statement condition in " leaking at drain trap / basket noted"  as my comment condition and then with one fell  touch a key and can be entered at all areas of plumbing that is needed.  Therefore avoiding pasting and going to all sections.  That is my question.

Per the California Professional code we are to follow the guidelines of a condition at each section (like texas) and direct the client in the right direction. I am going to create a template from scratch but do I need to use a default one and then copy and rename or can I create one from scratch, can't seem to find the info to create a scratch template.

To create a template from scratch just open the blank template and work away.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking above about the leaking condition. Can you give me more details?