When it comes to a successful residential purchase, it is rare when a home inspector does not perform a key role. Having the buyer receive an independent assessment of the condition of the property is invaluable. Sometimes agents may be heard to complain that some home inspectors are too picky or not clearly identifying whether an observed condition is or is not a “defect” as that term is used in the offer to purchase; but perhaps what is really happening is that the home inspector and the rules he or she must live by are simply misunderstood.

First, the basics: inspect the foundation

A “home inspector” is an individual who is paid to conduct a home inspection. A “home inspection” is a process by which a home inspector examines the observable systems and components of improvements to residential real property that are readily accessible. A “home inspection report” is the written opinion of a home inspector regarding the condition of the improvements and the mechanical and structural components of residential property that contains no more than four dwelling units.

Wisconsin home inspectors must be registered with the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS). They must pass a national and a state examination to become registered and must attend continuing education to renew the registration every two years.

Customizing the home inspection: inspect the awnings and shutters too please

There is no approved home inspection report form. The home inspector is required to inspect those improvements, installed systems and components listed in Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 134.03, and only if they are present on the property at the time of the home inspection and readily accessible. However, the buyer and the home inspector may agree to customize the list of components and items inspected. For example, the home inspection rules do not require home inspectors to inspect items not permanently attached like carpeting as well as washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers, stoves and ovens. However, home inspectors may be willing to test basic appliance operation upon request — for example, if the stove burners get hot. For some other items, like the chimney or the furnace, the buyer may wish to engage an appropriate expert, such as a chimney sweep or a furnace contractor, and in turn ask the home inspector to exclude the chimney or the furnace from the home inspection.

Required report elements: components, systems and items

Agents are often frustrated because the inspection report results do not neatly plug into the inspection contingency provisions in the offer. This happens because the standards that the home inspectors are required to use are not perfect matches. The home inspector will provide information about the condition of various property components but does not give the buyer a list of items that are defects for purposes of the inspection contingency. While some parties might prefer that, it is the buyer’s judgment, and not the opinion of the home inspector, that determines what goes on any notice of defects that the buyer might choose to give.

The home inspector must note any component, system or item that, if not repaired, will have a significant adverse effect on the life expectancy of that component, system or item, and list any material adverse facts that a home inspector has knowledge of or has observed. A “material adverse fact,” for purposes of a home inspection, is a condition or occurrence that is generally recognized by a competent home inspector as significantly reducing the functionality or structural integrity of property components or systems, or posing a significant health or safety risk to occupants of the structure and improvements.

Any time a home inspector does not follow the rules and provide a proper inspection report, he risks discipline by the DSPS. Read on for one story from the annals of the DSPS disciplinary decisions.

“Stuck” by the stucco: one home inspector gone wrong

In one case, the home inspector was tricked by a Permanent Wood Foundation (PWF) covered with stucco so that it would look like poured concrete. He inaccurately reported that the basement of the house was poured concrete. The only significant problem noted was the presence of mold in a corner of the basement. The home inspector accepted the seller’s explanation that any mold in the basement would have been caused by a pipe that burst the previous winter but had since been repaired.

After closing, the buyer was informed by a neighbor that the house originally had a limestone foundation that had washed out and later was replaced with a “plywood” foundation. The buyer then had another home inspection performed and subsequently filed a complaint with the DSPS alleging that the original home inspection report had been deficient. The DSPS investigator visited the property and took pictures and obtained information from the second home inspector, the listing broker and the appraiser. 

• The good news for the home inspector was that the DSPS concluded that his failure to detect the PWF disguised as concrete was not a violation of applicable standards. However, other issues turned up during the course of the investigation. 
• The home inspector reported that the deck attached to the house was “treated wood.” The investigator and second inspector found that the deck was poorly constructed and unsafe: it was not level, did not have poured footings, the railing was not attached properly, and was attached to the house by only a few lag bolts. The lack of sound construction violated Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 134.03(5)(a)5., which requires a home inspector to observe and describe the condition of “Decks, balconies, stoops, steps and porches including railings.” 
• The home inspector made no comment about the furnace exhaust vent. The investigator and second inspector found that the furnace exhaust vent was only a few inches above the ground — not in accordance with manufacturer specifications — and could thus be covered by snow, infiltrated by water, or entered by rodents. This violated § SPS 134.03(9)(a)1 & 4., which requires inspection of the heating system including the heating equipment and distribution systems, and exterior surfaces of chimneys, flutes and vents.
• The home inspector was unable to inspect the attic because the access door was painted shut and he was unable to open it without using a knife or other implement to cut around the edge, which is not required by the rules. But he gave confusing information in his inspection report — apparently guessing at some items and indicating they were acceptable, rather than saying the interior of the attic was not inspected. This violated § 134.03(11)(a)1. & 2., which requires a home inspector to observe and describe the condition of “insulation in unfinished spaces” and “ventilation of attics and foundation areas.”
• The home inspector reported that the family room walls were “paneled — signs of mold-like substances, would recommend further test by qualified person.” The second inspector found several other areas in the house that had signs of mold as well. This violated § 134.03(8)(a)1. & 6., which requires a home inspector to observe and describe the condition of walls, ceilings and floors, and signs of water penetration into the building or signs of abnormal or harmful condensation on building components.
• The home inspector reported electrical service in the house to be 100 amps, but it was only 60 amps. This violated § 134.03(7)(a)4., which requires a home inspector to observe and describe “Amperage and voltage ratings of the service.” 

Based on these and other violations, the home inspector’s license was suspended for 30 days and he was ordered to pay over $1,000 in costs.

Home inspectors are regulated by the DSPS, and complaints may be filed at dsps.wi.gov/Complaints when home inspectors do not abide by the applicable regulatory standards.

Debbi Conrad is Senior Attorney and Director of Legal Affairs for the WRA.