Functioning as intended

[Mundo Inspector]

It's really about deficiencies. An expensive exterior door can be badly damaged by a dog constantly scratching to get out, but still "function as intended". The term "deficiencies" includes defects, but "defects" doesn't necessarily include deficiencies (such as the door).

"No deficiencies were observed by the Inspector" works pretty well.

[Jim Katen]

It's really about deficiencies. An expensive exterior door can be badly damaged by a dog constantly scratching to get out, but still "function as intended". The term "deficiencies" includes defects, but "defects" doesn't necessarily include deficiencies (such as the door).

"No deficiencies were observed by the Inspector" works pretty well.

You're still relying on a special meaning for the word "deficiency." Ten people reading a home inspection report might have ten different ideas of what "deficiency" means. You can define "deficiency" within the body of the report, but that make it a hassle to read. You open yourself to the chance that someone can misunderstand you. Besides, a lot of people are going to think that looking nice is part of the "function" of an expensive door. Is there a problem with writing, "The front door is badly scratched but still works fine?" It's impossible to misunderstand because it doesn't rely on specially defined code words.

[Mundo Inspector]

You can argue about the meaning of almost any word or term. Sooner or later, you just have to pick a term. I started out with "serviceable condition". Now:

"The Inspector observed no deficiencies in the condition of..."

or

"The Inspector observed few deficiencies in the condition of... notable exceptions will be listed in this report".

[Mundo Inspector]

I propose they are wrong. It means absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned.

As time goes on, I believe more and more the report writing systems and their "catch phrases" are one of the largest problems in this gig. I have to stop now or I will burst into flames....

I agree 100%, except every time I've seen the phrase in someone's report it's "appears to be functioning as intended." Combined with other statements in those reports, it seems the purpose of the phrase is to not commit to anything. It seems to me they're trying to avoid upsetting "the deal" while also attempting to deflect any responsibility.

If I don't use those terms while I'm talking to someone, why would I write that way?

Because an inspection report is not an everyday conversation. Your report language may have to protect you in court. You can write in a reasonable language and still protect yourself.

Mostly, it's about being accurate.

[Jim Katen]

You can argue about the meaning of almost any word or term. Sooner or later, you just have to pick a term. I started out with "serviceable condition". Now:

"The Inspector observed no deficiencies in the condition of..."

or

"The Inspector observed few deficiencies in the condition of... notable exceptions will be listed in this report".

At the risk of repeating myself, why not just say what you see instead of translating it into pre-defined categories?

[Jim Katen]

. . . Mostly, it's about being accurate.

The best way to be accurate is to just describe what you see in simple terms. If a door is scratched up, but still opens, closes, and latches properly, why talk about servicablity, deficiency, or some other vague concept? Why not just say, "The door opens, closes, and latches shut properly, but it's finish is scratched."

[kurt]

How about...."The door is scratched"....(?).

If the door didn't work...."The door is scratched and it doesn't open/close/latch/knobs busted/whatever".

Include a picture of the scratches so the reader has context for how bad the scratches are.

"Traditional" ideas about how to write reports are completely screwed up; it's about time folks understood this. It's not necessary to say 2/3's of the crap everyone talks about.

[Bill Kibbel]

"The Inspector observed no deficiencies in the condition of..."

Do you really write like that? Or, should I ask why isn't "The Inspector" writing the report?

[Alpha Man]

For a door that was just pet damaged, but latched closed, locked, was not a hollow core at a entry location and sealed out the elements.

I would write something like this... "Door appeared functional with cosmetic damage"

The buyer probably already saw the pet damage. I would still include it so the client could see the detail of my inspection and feel comfortable I wasn't leaving anything out.

[Marc]

14 minutes ago, Alpha Man said:

For a door that was just pet damaged, but latched closed, locked, was not a hollow core at a entry location and sealed out the elements.

I would write something like this... "Door appeared functional with cosmetic damage"

The buyer probably already saw the pet damage. I would still include it so the client could see the detail of my inspection and feel comfortable I wasn't leaving anything out.

'The door has a little damage on it but works just fine.  Just so you know I didn't miss it.'

[RK52]

"Functioning as ANYthing (intended, designed, advertised)" is nothing more than just "functioning". I suppose a furnace could be installed improperly, yet still warm the building without CO sharing airspace with the residents. It's "functioning", doing its bit as a furnace, but that can have little or nothing to do with a proper installation.

I'm new to this, but that strikes me as a BS phrase designed to make someone sound high brow. And, apparently, in some places it is functioned and intended..

[inspector57]

I don't do positive affirmations.

As required by my state, I check the box "Inspected" and move on if there is nothing negative to report. 

Like Hausdok, I report on what is wrong.

The one exception is the requirement in the SOP to give an opinion of the foundation. In that one instance I use the dreaded "Functioning as intended" phrase just so I don't start writing foolish things that I might regret later. (i.e. it is hard, flat, located on the ground, and I like it just fine but the color is a little boring) - just to meet the state requirement to give my opinion)

[Marc]

7 hours ago, inspector57 said:

I don't do positive affirmations.

As required by my state, I check the box "Inspected" and move on if there is nothing negative to report. 

Like Hausdok, I report on what is wrong.

The one exception is the requirement in the SOP to give an opinion of the foundation. In that one instance I use the dreaded "Functioning as intended" phrase just so I don't start writing foolish things that I might regret later. (i.e. it is hard, flat, located on the ground, and I like it just fine but the color is a little boring) - just to meet the state requirement to give my opinion)

Sheesh, I don't hold back on my disgust of the silly state-mandated mentions:

"There is no moisture retarder installed at the ceiling level.  The State Board of Home Inspectors requires that I report this but you can disregard it.  Moisture retarders are not of much consequence in this hot/humid climate we love here.  That's mostly for folks up in northern frigid climates to worry about."

[Erby]

Someone is opening up all those old posts again, huh!

 

[Alpha Man]

I have been an expert witness in a claim against an inspector. It is true, both sides of counsel will rip testimony to shreds. The key I learned from that experience is... It didn't matter about the phrase used (Serviceable, functional Etc.) that is too big of a pissing match for someone to sue you. What is important, something that should have been reported, but wasn't. Now you got a problem. Inspect thoroughly and report what was observed. If something is as you would expect, describe it, if it wasn't, describe that. Supporting pictures are also a big plus even if they are not included in the report.

[Charlie R]

If you want to use the phrase "functioning as intended" , "operating as intended", or even " working as intended", the question becomes whose intentions? You need to add something like "working as intended by the manufacturer". The manufacturer or an architect or a builder determines the purpose, how, and to what limits something should work and proper writing requires identifying whose intentions are being met. How a Trane furnace operates is set by Trane, the job done by roof trusses is determined by the truss engineer, etc. 

[Jim Baird]

Inspectors report on what they see.  They might "operate" equipment but do not analyze operation or performance.  An inspector does not operate a roof unless he ducks inside for shelter.  Even a sloppy roof job might not leak,...yet.