What do builders think?

In May one of our newsletters was about new construction. It talked about a home I am involved with in another county far away with numerous problems, including major structural deficiencies. That home remains unfinished and is now involved in a lawsuit.

I thought you would be interested to know that on a monthly basis articles written for you that are pertinent are edited and used as a column in the Home Builders Associations monthly publication. This was one of those articles and was titled: "Why Pre-Purchase Inspections on New Construction?" your article was simply titled "New Construction."

A homebuilder responded in writing. Here are his comments and my response. Unfortunately he didn't think his name was important (wonder why) so I have no idea who this person is. This, in an edited version will also be offered to the Home Builders Association for publication.

(Note: Typos have been cleaned up for clarity.)

To whom it may concern:

I was less than thrilled to find the enclosed article in this months HBA newsletter, Why Pre-purchase Inspections On New Construction? By Chris Hilton. Apparently Mr. Hilton is writing to convince us that builders and building inspectors are incompetent. I take great offense to this? I have found the WSFC inspections department to be extremely competent and knowledgeable. I also have found most builders to be competent and reliable.

To those who publish our newsletter, you obviously do not understand whom you are representing, or you do not read that which you print.

We as homebuilders, through our association should ban together to see that these home inspectors are following the codes and guidelines set forth by their governing agency.

I personally find their services in new construction to be a waste of our client's money. They are disruptive to the closing process, create distrust between the buyer and the seller, and are inadequately trained. In addition we should combat the home inspectors on the issue of radon testing. It is clearly a conflict of interest for a home inspector to perform a radon test and then perform radon remediation on the same job.

We should push for long term testing of radon. A ninety-day test should be the standard. The present 48-hour test is inaccurate and ineffective.

Home inspectors cost us money, time, effort, and loss of good will. It is offensive to have them as members of our association, and or to have them contributing to our association's newsletter.

I would greatly appreciate your publishing my response.

The Home Builders Association has chosen not to publish this letter because it was not signed. I, however, think it is a great letter reflecting the feeling of many homebuilders and Realtors relative to new construction inspections and more than worthy of a response. Before I start please let it be clear, for the past 30 plus years, I have been a builder, have completed over 4,000,000 square feet of construction and clearly feel this builders concern. So here goes:

Let me start by concurring with our builder that I to have found the WSFC inspections department to be extremely competent and knowledgeable. I also have found many (notice I didn't say most) builders to be competent and reliable. I have been working with the local inspection division for over 30 years and sat on the citizens review committee, which most recently reviewed their operations as a representative of the Home Builders Association along with Steve Kelley and Emma Graham. If you take time to read our review and suggestions for their operation you will find them to be most praise worthy.

Home Inspections have very little to do with the many competent, reliable and knowledgeable city/county inspectors or builders on a national basis. It has to do with those who are not. There are many who are not, for whatever reason, and you know some of them as well as I do. Unfortunately there are many subcontractors and builders who either don't know better or just plain don't care about meeting codes, let alone generally accepted or common sense building practices. With the limited time and resources of our great city/county inspectors there is no way they can police the problem. City/county inspectors measure their time on a site in minutes, where the private home inspector measures his in hours. City/county inspectors are only inspecting for minimum code while private home inspectors are looking at generally accepted building practices in comparable priced homes. Therein lies the difference. Private home inspectors are here to not only raise the question about public safety, but to help the home buyer determine if he is getting what he is paying for.

Our builder states: "We as homebuilders, through our association, should ban together to see that these home inspectors are following the codes and guidelines set forth by their governing agency." Amen! and Amen! Please do, and not only you Mr. Homebuilder, but Realtors, Buyers and Sellers, hold the home inspectors feet to the fire. Unfortunately just as there are bad apples among homebuilders, there are bad apples among home inspectors. Home Inspection is being tooted as an easy business for anyone to enter into without a construction background and it may be. Remember, calling yourself a builder or Realtor doesn't make you a good one, and claiming to be a home inspector doesn't either. Competent home inspectors don't want the bad apples. Why is it that our homebuilder wouldn't want the bad apples among homebuilders to have their feet held to the fire? Inspections on new construction by competent home inspectors are what will make it happen, and it should happen.

Our builder says he "…personally find(s) their services in new construction to be a waste of our client's money. They are disruptive to the closing process, create distrust between the buyer and the seller, and are inadequately trained." It would be very easy to say the same about some of the builders whose homes I have inspected. Do you know any builders like that? The whole reason for home inspections are the "distrust between buyers and the sellers" home inspectors are not about creating distrust, we are about forcing trust. If you know someone knowledgeable is going to inspect your work before the deal will close, what kind of work are you going to do? If it's the right kind what you will receive in my inspection report is praise. How much I wish I could write more of that in lieu of what I am often forced to write by the conditions observed.

As to training, after 30 years in the construction business I have become well aware of the need for training. If I only knew as much as I wished I knew. Maybe that's why in the past year I have spent over 120 hours in continuing education classes when only 12 are required to maintain my license and read on average of 2 to 3 books per week. I wonder how many hours the builders around here have spent in class or reading since none are required for their license. Realtors who have nothing to do with protecting the safety of the public are required to have 8 hours per year. What is this about training?

Relative to the Radon testing issue, you should be aware that to my knowledge in this area there are only two home inspectors who perform both Radon testing and remediation and I am not one of them for the very reason stated. I can't argue with that issue.

Relative to long term testing of Radon, the builder is almost correct accept he doesn't understand what he is talking about. A ninety-day test not only should be the standard, but is the standard for a non-real estate transactions. The 48-hour test is simply to accommodate the transaction, which does not allow time for a 90-day test. If the builders want to delay closing for 90-days for testing or escrow funds for remediation, you won't see home inspectors arguing about 90-day testing. I do both, often following a high 48-hour test with a 90-day test. I find the 48-hour test to be very accurate on high readings but often find lower readings when they are close to 4.0. Saying that a 48-hour test is inaccurate and ineffective only shows this persons lack of information about the issue.

As to the builders last comment, if home inspectors are costing him money, time and loss of good will, maybe he should determine if such is the fault of the inspector or what he is inspecting. Sounds like the Home Builders Association needs more members who are home inspectors and more contributions to our association newsletter.

I know you don't believe it, but I retired from construction and became a home inspector for two reasons.

1. To provide my experience and knowledge for the protection of the homebuyer.
2. For the betterment of builders and the construction industry.

If you have a problem with my reasons, then you are correct, one of us should not be a member of the Home Builders Association of Winston-Salem.

Thought for the week