The recent court case in B.C. that held a home inspector liable for damages to the tune of $200,000.00 (approximately) has fueled a debate in the press and within the real estate community. The home inspectors of the world are lining up for antacid pills each night so you know they're talking about it.
I received a phone call from a CBC reporter yesterday (she also happens to be a past client). We were speaking "off the record". She was simply trying to understand what constitutes a "bad inspector" versus a "good inspector". She too had read about the court case and was looking to report on this further.
I began the discussion by saying "I'm not trying to defend this profession but....". The "but" of course is the limited scope of a home inspection given the inspector can only comment on what is visible. They cannot break drywall to inspect the floor joists nor can they manufacture a hole in the ceiling so they can view the attic. Having said that, I told her of the local inspector who a few years ago, "missed" the spout of an old oil tank that cost a seller $50,000.00 to repair. Fortunately my client's home inspector found it and so from our perspective, there was a happy ending. Does that constitute a "bad inspector"? Yes, of course.
The quality that is often lacking in the home inspection industry has to do with an inspector's ability to communicate clearly with the novice home owner. I would naturally steer clear of inspectors who are aloof and quiet, stingy with words or comments or worse, illiterate. I'd also avoid those who are non committal. There's a major company locally who brag that their inspectors have an engineering background. They also charge more than anyone else. However, they say less about what they find in a home than most of the others. Their final report has more to do with warning the client about what they did not find or could not see. The insinuation is please don't hold me accountable for much of what I say in this report.
For example, at the beginning of their reports, they comment on the fact that the house (or all houses in Toronto) is in a termite area and though the home inspector didn't see evidence of termites, the client might want to call in a professional and pay extra for that report. Then they quote a termite treatment as costing a few thousand dollars. This is in all of their reports even though there may not be evidence of termites within a mile of the property. That's not the kind of cautious, circle the wagon kind of approach clients are paying good money for.
Most home inspectors however will say that "to the best of my knowledge" or "from what I know about houses from this era"...and they go on to comment on the lifespan of a house of this type and the integrity of a brick house as opposed to a frame house etc. If there's cause for concern with certain aspects of the house, a good inspector (along with a good Realtor) will suggest calling in a specialist. I have a list of skilled professionals that will come and have a look to see if there's something we've missed.
After our phone call, the reporter emailed me a link from a blog I had never heard of before. There, for the world to read, were the results of the court case, including much of the testimony. This case is far from over. The defendant will likely appeal the ruling. Stay tuned.