Crappy Hybrid Inspection

[Andee]

WHY was this report ...."reviewed" by you at all ?? Wasn't insufficient-conflicting information- FOUND on the order assignment to "Review IT" initially? Aren't we suppose to inform the Lender UPFRONT that conflicting data on the Hybrid Appraisal Report (to be reviewed) is "CRAP"?
Then the Lender-Client is suppose to escalate the Order to a FULL Traditional (ANSI) OR it's "back on the client" to decide, right?

****ALL of this for FREE unless YOU charge for your time during ...Order Creation. What a mess you have found yourself IN.

No idea why it was ordered, didn't ask. It was sent back and I told them to have a full interior 1004 done because everything was crap, listed it all out on why I couldn't review it, and now they can decide what to do.

 

[Andee]

The "appraiser's sketch verbiage is imbedded into a 1004. It is a disclaimer regarding the accuracy of the sketch. If the appraiser is using it then technically it is the appraiser's sketch, albeit from a source other than the appraiser. The same can be said about using plans in a new construction appraisal.

That comments were typed by the appraiser in either a comments section of the 1004 or in an addendum, this was not an embedded statement.

 

[Sadie]

That comments were typed by the appraiser in either a comments section of the 1004 or in an addendum, this was not an embedded statement.

I know, he/she is simply stating the accuracy that is to be expected from the sketch. Pretty standard disclosure. I think the bigger issue is how the report differs from the inspection and why it differs. That statement is just a disclaimer.

 

[Andee]

The bigger concerns to me is not the content of the finish work, its missing the foundation type and missing the condition of the property. Re the attic. Homes can have a door and a drop stair access. You weren't there. Re: the 5' rule. I have always excluded under 5" as I think most of us do on the second floor. Because you don't have the original engagement letter you don't know what constraints the OA was under. Yes it appears to be a crappy inspection and appraisal.

You're right, I wasn't there, but you can clearly see in one of the photos that the bathroom door is open and it's a standard size door in an area that is high enough to support that size door, and the door next to it is just lower by maybe a foot at max, both doors are open and almost touching each other, which is how you can see where I would come to the conclusion that it's not under 5 feet high, given that a standard door is 7 feet high.

 

[Andee]

Many of the wealthy people in SO CA have indoor Grills some of them cost $10,000 or more , the same with Pizza ovens , I have seen some at $15,000 to $25,000 .

I know...I have a friend I went to school with that just redid his kitchen has a small grill on the interior and has a pizza oven in the backyard along with a bigger grill outside...he lives in Manhattan Beach, people with money to burn.

 

[Sadie]

You're right, I wasn't there, but you can clearly see in one of the photos that the bathroom door is open and it's a standard size door in an area that is high enough to support that size door, and the door next to it is just lower by maybe a foot at max, both doors are open and almost touching each other, which is how you can see where I would come to the conclusion that it's not under 5 feet high, given that a standard door is 7 feet high.

Makes you wonder if he/she was looking at the correct inspection report.

 

[glenn walker]

The problem I have is the Title of the thread is "Crappy Hybrid Inspection"​

As a long time reviewer this told me the person doing the review is not a professional-reviewer as we are trained to not even use that type of terminology, words or Biases. A professional goes in without - a agenda and does not go in with a Biases. Unfortunate this person does not like "Hybrids" and that is fine but he-she-it could never separate their hate of " hybrids" from their review. Therefore I do not consider any of hi/her its findings relevant as the goal was to discredit the original appraiser or Inspector . If he/she/it had been on my team once I saw the words "crappy" hybrid, I would have removed him /her from the assignment and given it to another reviewer. Then I would have sat down with that reviewer and said we are Professionals and this is your first warning and two more and you are gone.

 

[Andee]

The problem I have is the Title of the thread is "Crappy Hybrid Inspection"​

As a long time reviewer this told me the person doing the review is not a professional-reviewer as we are trained to not even use that type of terminology, words or Biases. A professional goes in without - a agenda and does not go in with a Biases. Unfortunate this person does not like "Hybrids" and that is fine but he-she-it could never separate their hate of " hybrids" from their review. Therefore I do not consider any of hi/her its findings relevant as the goal was to discredit the original appraiser or Inspector . If he/she/it had been on my team once I saw the words "crappy" hybrid, I would have removed him /her from the assignment and given it to another reviewer. Then I would have sat down with that reviewer and said we are Professionals and this is your first warning and two more and you are gone.

Thanks for the pep talk Glenn. I prefer not to do hybrids due to the liability issues, as in the actual reporting process. I'm not sure how else I could have worded that, would POOR Hybrid Inspection been a better choice of words (is there a word less than poor that would have been a better choice)? It was 4:30 in the morning, I was tired and had been researching information and that's what came out. And yes you are correct, I could have found a better choice in words.

As for my feelings on hybrid reports, they do not influence my review, I treat them like any other, I look at them, research all the information provided in the report for accuracies/deficiencies and report my findings. This particular report just happen to have a really really really bad inspection accompanying it, which was transferred into the actual appraisal report. When it was returned I did NOT use the word "Crappy". I let them know there were too many inaccuracies in the inspection that went into the report that I could not provide any type of a credible review and they should consider a full interior report, plus listed out the issues with the inspection and what made it into the report for the lender to decide if they were going to proceed with an interior inspection.

 

[ramrcdk]

No idea why it was ordered, didn't ask. It was sent back and I told them to have a full interior 1004 done because everything was crap, listed it all out on why I couldn't review it, and now they can decide what to do.

Andee good for you that you did Decline the Assignment. I too tend to be as helpful to their needs as I can.
For a Hybrid-Type Review : Perhaps next time...let them figure out "why". "Why" is likely WHY you received the Order initially.

In essence a Simple: Per your request for a Review Appraisal Assignment, the current attachments are not sufficient and lack necessary credible Review Information. The assignment must be declined.

Curious HOW long did ...listing it all out...take? And what was your Fee for Time?

 

[George Hatch]

If the inspection report hadn't been so flawed it wouldn't have been a problem for an appraiser to use it. If the appraiser had been more mindful about sussing out their data they would have realized the GIGO aspect of the situation and kicked the report back for revisions.

I don't see any increase in liability here. The appraiser wasn't "tricked" into using the inspection report through no fault of their own, they were just being lazy it. If the problems hadn't been obvious but still significant enough to result in a gross overvaluation, which is actually hard to imagine, then it wouldn't have been any more risky to use this data source over any other data source - they're all subject to some degree of error.

The point here is that if you're that afraid of being held responsible for errors which are unknown/unknowable due to the SOW then that's just paranoia. You've already used plenty of datapoints over the years which, unbeknownst to you, had errors in them. You didn't commit any misconduct by relying upon and using that info in your reports so there's nothing for your critics to criticize you on. You're only responsible for your own conduct and performance.