Significant Appraisal Assistance (1004p)

[DWiley]

I will research the back story of what you conveyed and get back to you on it!

I do not have to research it. I lived it.

 

[mike32716]

Wanna bet?

Not being mean. But simply ask people who have actually done them. I have done them for 5 different AMC's. All comes over with a name of who did them.

So you simply take their name and put it in your report.

The 1004P orders and data that I have seen do not have the inspector's name, only the company. Are these 1004Ps that you are doing or a proprietary hybrid format?

 

[George Hatch]

I kinda doubt Fannie/Freddie will actually demand the use of home inspectors or insurance inspectors - not when the overall fee is one of their considerations. But if they did then the liability for any errors those inspectors made would go directly to them - they'd have a tougher time claiming technical incompetency.

 

[mike32716]

I kinda doubt Fannie/Freddie will actually demand the use of home inspectors or insurance inspectors - not when the overall fee is one of their considerations. But if they did then the liability for any errors those inspectors made would go directly to them - they'd have a tougher time claiming technical incompetency.

I agree. I am familiar with the insurance inspectors they are using (well known reputable company). The inspectors are not licensed like adjusters so would not likely have liability (not sure if the company would). They are "data collecting" for adjusters just like "inspectors" will be data collecting for us, but are only used for simple claims. The difference is that the insurance companies have a vested interest in getting highly accurate information for adjustment purposes. They have their own money on the line. As such, these inspectors are trained well, and actually make a decent wage. There is no way they will do these for $35-$50.

 

[DWiley]

The 1004P orders and data that I have seen do not have the inspector's name, only the company. Are these 1004Ps that you are doing or a proprietary hybrid format?

The 1004P report itself is not required to include the name of the inspector (just as for comps the name of the listing agent is not typically provided), nor is a copy of the inspection report itself required in the 1004P (just as we typically do not include copies of actual MLS listings and/or tax cards). However, that does not mean that the appraiser does not have the information - just as not having the agent's name or an MLS listing in a report does not mean that it isn't in the workfile.

 

[mike32716]

The 1004P report itself is not required to include the name of the inspector (just as for comps the name of the listing agent is not typically provided), nor is a copy of the inspection report itself required in the 1004P (just as we typically do not include copies of actual MLS listings and/or tax cards). However, that does not mean that the appraiser does not have the information - just as not having the agent's name or an MLS listing in a report does not mean that it isn't in the workfile.

I agree.
Sorry, question got doubled up with another response. It was aimed at Addie. I was curious as to what type of hybrid Addie was doing.

 

[George Hatch]

I agree. I am familiar with the insurance inspectors they are using (well known reputable company). The inspectors are not licensed like adjusters so would not likely have liability (not sure if the company would). They are "data collecting" for adjusters just like "inspectors" will be data collecting for us, but are only used for simple claims. The difference is that the insurance companies have a vested interest in getting highly accurate information for adjustment purposes. They have their own money on the line. As such, these inspectors are trained well, and actually make a decent wage. There is no way they will do these for $35-$50.

That makes sense.

 

[George Hatch]

The 1004P report itself is not required to include the name of the inspector (just as for comps the name of the listing agent is not typically provided), nor is a copy of the inspection report itself required in the 1004P (just as we typically do not include copies of actual MLS listings and/or tax cards). However, that does not mean that the appraiser does not have the information - just as not having the agent's name or an MLS listing in a report does not mean that it isn't in the workfile.

I would want to append that report to my report and write my own separate "clarification" on the issue, just because it does involve the subject and not the comps.

 

[J Grant]

The real irony is JGs argument. When Significant professional Assistance was changed to Significant Real Property appraisal Assistance, that was driven primarily by the fact that appraisers did not want to be held accountable/responsible for the work of others who were not appraisers. Now, JG wants to argue for such persons to be listed in the certification, which WOULD make the appraiser responsible. so, she doe snot want to be responsible, but is arguing for the opposite in USPAP.

Trying to follow this- reasoning. - since the change to significant real property appraisal assistance means the appraiser would not be held accountable for the work of others, then how does listing the person who \inspected as providing significant real property assistance (in the addendum or wherever customary) make appraiser responsible for the inspector work? I did not say I wanted the inspector named in the cert section or signing.

At the very least, the name of the party who inspected should be in the 1004 P as having done the inspection. "Inspection of subject performed as of eff date X, by Joe Smith ( RE agent or other license isf applicable ) That would be transparent. what is the reason they are avoiding being transparent.?

How can public trust exist without transparency?

 

[George Hatch]

There's nothing preventing the appraiser from making their own disclosures. USPAP establishes a minimum that we expect of everyone - it doesn't establish an upper limit of conduct or performance.