Deficiency Statements and Recommendations

Deficiency statements

A report's deficiency statements are probably its most important part. Clients usually concentrate on them and ignore everything else, even when urged to read the entire report. Each deficiency statement must comply with state regulations and with the SoP the home inspector uses.

A deficiency statement has these common elements: identify or describe the deficiency, explain its implication, advise the client how to address it, recommend the appropriate contractor, describe the location, and include a picture. Each one is usually required, unless noted otherwise. Its form or wording may change with the report format and with the deficiency. The information should be similar either way.

Identify or describe the deficiency

The statement should tell the client enough about the deficiency to grasp its type or nature. A description should be both accurate and precise. An inaccurate or imprecise statement can confuse the client. For damages caused by that confusion, the inspector who wrote it may be held accountable.

In one example, a thin crack runs through the mortar of a brick veneer wall covering at the front of the house. A statement that reports only a crack in the bricks at the front of the house can be read many ways. The client could take the bricks for structural bricks rather than brick veneer. The client could also think the bricks themselves are cracked, which is potentially more serious than a mortar crack. The statement also gives no width or length. Thin cracks are common and usually not serious; a wide crack is often more serious.

A better description reports a thin crack in the front brick veneer mortar. It is accurate because it places the crack in the mortar of brick veneer. It is precise because it calls the crack thin, a word the ordinary client can understand.

Explain the implication of the deficiency

The implication statement should give the client enough to understand why a deficiency matters, or what could occur if nobody addresses it. Inspection reports often exclude it or explain it poorly, although it is important. Without it, a client may lack enough information to choose, with full knowledge, how to raise the deficiency with a seller or another party. Dissatisfied clients often cite a missing implication explanation as grounds for holding the home inspector liable for repairs and damages.

The implication statement can be short. Too much information can confuse as much as too little. A good implication statement for a cable splice outside a box names two hazards: electrical shock and fire ignition. A short statement like this explains the risk of leaving the deficiency uncorrected in terms the ordinary client can understand.

An implication statement should help the client understand the implications without being unduly alarming. Striking this balance can be hard, especially where the subject is one the client may not understand. Structural deficiencies often have implications that are difficult for clients to understand.

In one example, a beam has a notch at its center for a garage vehicle door operator. No deformation or other damage is visible. The implication statement might state that no deformation is visible now, to reduce unnecessary client apprehension. It might also explain that the beam could still deform or fail under certain conditions, and that whether it may deform in the future cannot be predicted.

Advise the client about how to address the deficiency

The deficiency statement should give the client the home inspector's recommendation on how to proceed. That does not mean specifying or designing a repair. A home inspector should not do either, even when qualified. Nobody hires or pays a home inspector to assume that risk.

Most SoPs give three options, any of which the home inspector may use in advising the client:

• Repair/replace: repair or replace the item.
• Further evaluation: a qualified specialist evaluates the item.
• Monitoring: watch the item for possible future action.

The option chosen should be one that the home inspector's SoP provides.

For deficiencies reported as not functioning properly and unsafe, repair/replace is the default. The home inspector should recommend it unless a valid reason supports another option. The choice between repair and replacement should rest on advice from the specialist the client hires. A sample repair/replace recommendation calls for repair or replacement as a qualified specialist recommends.

A qualified specialist's further evaluation is the appropriate recommendation in three situations:

1. A deficiency is evident, but its cause or current state cannot be determined.
2. A deficiency is evident, but confirming it requires analysis or procedures outside the scope of a home inspection.
3. The deficiency, system, or component lies outside the home inspector's expertise.

Moisture stains on interior surfaces fit the first situation. Finding where the moisture comes from, and whether it is still active, usually requires further evaluation. A malfunctioning HVAC system fits the second, for example a low drop in temperature across the evaporator coil. Learning whether it malfunctions, why, and what repair suits it usually requires further evaluation too. No home inspector can know all about every system and component a house might contain. Acknowledging ignorance and recommending a specialist's evaluation is far better for the home inspector and the client. A sample further evaluation recommendation asks for a qualified specialist to evaluate further and for action as that specialist recommends.

Monitoring's potential for improper use is the highest of the three options. Monitoring is, in part for that reason, the most difficult action recommendation. It is the most appropriate choice for a system or component that still functions properly but is near the end of its service life. Such an item may need service more often, and at some future time it will need to be replaced. Monitoring may also suit a condition that, in the home inspector's view, is not deficient when inspected but may become deficient later. The recommendation alerts the client to it.

A monitoring recommendation should tell the client what conditions to look for and what to do if they occur. Example: a concrete block foundation wall has a long thin crack along one mortar joint, with no sign of deformation or water infiltration. A suitable recommendation asks the client to monitor it on a regular basis. If the crack widens, shows horizontal displacement, or admits water, it calls for a qualified foundation contractor to evaluate it.

Inspection reports frequently misuse evaluate and monitor. Where a system or component is unsafe, significantly deficient, or not functioning properly, and repair/replace is clearly the appropriate recommendation, they should be used rarely, if ever. Neither should serve to downplay a deficiency so that a real estate agent is not upset. Evaluate also should not shift risk back to the client through a recommendation to evaluate everything. That practice diminishes both the inspection's importance and the home inspector's reputation.

Recommend the appropriate contractor

Most home inspectors name the appropriate contractor for each deficiency, although most SoPs do not specifically require it. Doing so gives the client information needed to make decisions. Naming the appropriate contractor is not the same as naming a specific contractor. A home inspector who chooses to name one may not accept compensation or consideration of any kind for doing so. That could be an ethical violation. At best, it could make a conflict of interest appear to exist.

Picking the appropriate contractor is often easy. Plumbing deficiencies go to plumbers and electrical deficiencies to electricians. One difficult case is a deficiency whose cause or source is not apparent, such as moisture stains. The cause is sometimes a roofing deficiency, sometimes a plumbing deficiency, and sometimes a deficiency in insulation or a vapor retarder. In such cases the home inspector may pick, by best judgment, the contractor most likely to be appropriate. The home inspector may instead recommend an appropriate specialist in generic terms.

Structural deficiencies are another difficult case: whether to recommend an engineer or a contractor. Where a common or prescriptive action addresses the deficiency, a contractor is the appropriate recommendation. One example is a floor joist of dimensional lumber that was drilled or notched improperly. Installing blocking or a sister joist can usually address it. A contractor who evaluates it and finds the situation beyond the contractor's expertise should engage an engineer.

Where no common or prescriptive action exists, an engineer is the appropriate recommendation. An altered truss is an example. Truss repairs must be designed and approved by an engineer. Many foundation-related deficiencies also require an engineer-designed repair.

Describe the location of the deficiency

Many home inspectors describe where a deficiency is, although SoPs do not require it. Knowing the location helps everyone who uses the report find the deficiency, which reduces unnecessary and unproductive communication. Home inspectors often state in the report that left and right are as seen from the street, facing the house.

Include a picture of the deficiency

SoPs do not require pictures, but many home inspectors include them. A picture serves three purposes: it helps describe and identify the deficiency, it helps people locate it, and it documents the condition of a system or component when inspected. Pictures of every room can record the conditions present during the inspection. If questions about the inspection come up later, pictures can be very useful.

Numbers and Rules to Memorize