Society of inspectors offers test standards

Home inspections have begun to get their proper attention from legislators during the past few years.

For a segment of the home-buying process that was a deal maker or breaker, it always seemed interesting to me that this industry that sought out all the defects of a property could field employees who had no accreditation.

Although many reputable companies have for years offered extensive training to their inspectors, there were many who became inspectors by virtue of hanging a shingle and taking out an ad.

That’s all it took for them to become inspectors — and it’s still the case in 23 states and the District.

In the last 13 years, though, starting with Texas, states have begun to require home inspectors to maintain varying levels of certification, training or licensing.

The states have really come under fire from Realtors, mortgage providers and now the inspection industry itself, asking that a standardized education process be put into place.

A perusal of the measures, however, shows that states have different ideas of what it takes to protect the consumer from inexperienced or incompetent inspectors who could cause more damage than good.

The American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) is an advocate of sensible professional regulation.

ASHI, which represents more than 6,000 home inspectors across the country, says on its site, www.ashi.org, that while it “will act to preempt governmental actions that … would work to the detriment of the profession and/or the home buying consumer,” it also demands that any legislation “require, at a minimum, passage of a psychometrically valid and defensible technical examination, and adherence to … professional standards of practice and code of ethics.”

About five years ago, the Examination Board of Home Inspectors instituted the National Home Inspector Examination, a content-valid examination for use by regulatory bodies and membership organizations.

It’s about the most standardized test for home inspectors out there, and it’s used as a baseline for several of the legislative acts passed in the past few years.

I’ve always advocated that a home buyer get an inspection of the targeted property — and, if possible — add it as a contingency on the contract.

However, keep in mind that if your state requires certification or a certain level of education of its inspectors, that doesn’t mean that’s what you’ll get when you cross the state line.

Some states don’t require certification or licensing — just registration, passage of the above exam or other national association exam and a fee. Still others require nothing at all.

Thus, in some states — such as Virginia — where certification is voluntary, an inspector can still operate without the state’s approval; it’s just that he cannot call himself “state certified.” Maryland enacted a home-inspection-license requirement in 2001. The District has no home-inspector certification requirements.

Many inspection companies, however, require that their inspectors work toward professional certification.

For a list of states and their regulatory requirements, visit ASHI’s Web site (recently remodeled, I might add) and click Homebuyers/Sellers, then follow the link to State Regulations.

I would also suggest that you take a look at ASHI’s Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics, if you are about to have a home inspected, so you have an understanding of what the inspector should and should not be doing.

The home inspector is exactly that. Although he or she might have a background in electrical, plumbing, construction or other home maintenance, the inspector is not there to give estimates and tell you how to fix the defects — rather to provide a status of the house.

It should be an objective look at the property that lets the home buyer (and seller) know the defects, weaknesses and potential problems of the structure.

Even with state certification and all this training floating around, however, I’ve personally seen varying degrees of inspection.

One investment property I was selling went through two contracts because of the first inspector. He found “dry rot” that in his estimation would cost more than $3,000 to fix because of flooring that, in his opinion, had to be replaced.

Well, that contract fell through. The next inspector with the next set of buyers noted that some replacement wood would work and that it would cost about $300 to fix.

This incident points out the issues I had with the lack of standardized inspection services available to the home buyer and seller in the marketplace.

Fortunately, ASHI, other professional associations and state legislatures are beginning to require a standardized examination process to assure to the consumer consistent treatment on his or her most expensive investment.

M. Anthony Carr has written about real estate for more than 15 years. Reach him by e-mail (manthonycarr@erols.com).