I often hear the argument that if a component in the home is "serviceable" inspectors have no business reporting on it. It is as if a label of "serviceable" covers the item with a shroud of "OK-ness," and we don't need to talk about the fact that it is 20 years past its life expectancy.
Let's discuss "serviceable" for a moment. That is one of those words that have almost no meaning whatsoever in the context of a description about a component in a home----in my opinion.
It sounds too much like something waiting for a grease gun, an HVAC technician, or an airplane at the arrival gate.
I know what it is "intended" to mean, and I think there are better ways to say it.
For example, is it more accurate to say that the faucet is serviceable or that water came out? You might want to then qualify the description with the amount that actually flowed or that the amount would not "typically" be sufficient or any other "qualifier" that fits what is actually going on.
As inspectors, I think we have to be careful about trying to find one word that covers all kinds of scenarios.
I am sure we have all seen those reports that read like a tombstone:
Foundation----serviceable
Roof-----serviceable
Siding-----serviceable
Furnace-----dead
Doors & Windows-----serviceable
Etc.-------serviceable.
No wonder they can crank the report out on site!
First of all, what is "expected" of a faucet?
#1. For water to come out, (pretty basic, but really isn't that about it?)
Then there is the long list of things that would modify that "basic" expectation. Nothing else really needs to be said about the faucet unless there is something about the "coming out" that departs from the basic expectation, like:
1. Not enough water
2. No water
3. Not hot enough
4. Too hot
5. Sprays all over the place
6. Runs rusty
7. Runs blue
8. Etc.
So, we might say something like, "Water flowed, and sprayed all over the countertop making the room blue. I recommend repairs by qualified repair person to prevent spraying of water all over the bathroom." It takes more words, but accurately describes what is going on. To say that the faucet is serviceable actually tells the listener that the thing is either "ready to be serviced" or that it is "able" or "in a position" to be serviced.
I think some inspectors are lazy and/or are scared to death of words. Some of the "canned" language of the commercially available report software takes inspectors down this path as well. Either way, it is the consumer that ends up with useless and/or unintelligible reports, which are passed off as "information."
Remember though, it is the nature of language to not always convey "exactly" the same thing to every person no matter how vigilant we are, but if we just tell the story----as opposed to attempt to write in "shorthand"----the risk of miscommunication or no communication goes way down. Especially if we stay away from "useless" words all together.
Does your inspector use the word "serviceable?"
Charles Buell
PS, for those of you that are new to my blog (or for some other "unexplained" reason have never noticed)
all pictures and smiley-face inserts (emoticons) (when I use them) have messages that show up when you point at them with your cursor.
MEMBERS OF ACTIVE RAIN CAN EASILY SUBSCRIBE
TO MY BLOG BY CLICKING ON THE NUMBER PLATE!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Click on the Rose 
to check out: AHA!---A Forum of Landmark Proportions---your Group
PS, for those of you that are new to my blog (or for some other "unexplained" reason have never noticed)
all pictures and smiley-face inserts (emoticons) (when I use them) have messages that show up when you point at them with your cursor.
My WORDLESS WEDNESDAY pictures and some selected POEMS & STORIES.
Charles, tell me that you are kidding, right. Just the word serviceable with no other explanations. I have not seen that type of reporting method around here. Close to it.
~ All the Best
Roy, well I was "liberal" with the hyperbole----but not that far off:)
Charles - I have seen the word"serviceable" but there is generally an explanation of how the item was viewed and tested. I would say to explain how you tested and viewed everything but there is no need to write up anything that is not a defect.
If the buyer is doing their job and actually attending the inspection, they will know what their inspector means by serviceable. Most buyers do not attend home inspections.
Hmm, I think my wife calls me that. Does that mean I'm useless, or just in need of being serviced?
Seriously, a lot of inspectors and inspection reports do use the word "serviceable", and quite honestly, I didn't see anything wrong with it, as long as if there IS something remarkable about the item, that it be further explained. Whether you use the word serviceable, or satisfactory, or good, or functioning as intended, or no defects noted, the basic idea is to get across that there is nothing remarkably wrong with the item, and that it will be of 'Service" to the user for it's intended purpose. Why go into a dissertation about it?
Steve, I think the rub comes when we try to define what is defective. To me there can often be lots that needs to be said about items that are functioning as intended. I know the toilet is a "gross" example of that but it conveys my point. As to the word "serviceable," Webster's definition of "serviceable" defines the word as: 1. helpful, 2, wearing well in use. I don't think that either of these really describes what is going on or its "actual" condition. Did you mean that most buyers "do not" attend the inspection? Around here it is pretty rare for the buyer to not be present.
Kevin, I don't in general have a lot of heartburn with what you are saying----just for me---the word serviceable has an element about it that says it is "able to be serviced."
I too, have done very FEW inspections where the buyer is NOT present. Occasionally, I get the out of town buyer or investor who is not present, but that is really the exception.
Charles - It has been my experience that more than 50% of buyers do not attend. I make it very clear to my clients that they must attend the home inspection.
Steve, I guess I could deal with that if I had to but it sure seems that everyone's liability goes way up if the buyer isn't actually there. I go out of my way to make sure they are going to be there. It is much easier to communicate how much "weight" to attach to what is discovered during the inspection-----makes the actual written report much less intimidating.
I agree with that 100% Charles.
Well gentlemen believe it or not, I have a 75% absentee on my inspections. ~ Roy
Wow Roy, that is amazing. It's really funny to see how different parts of the country are.
Roy, ditto what Kevin said----amazing
Charles -Yikes, the photo gave me goose bumps and chills! Not in a good way! ~Rita
Rita, I will be looking into how to give you goosebumbs and chills in a good way then. 409 and a little elbow grease and it will be good as new----don't you think?
Charles .... How did you classify that beautiful toilet? Looks like a little toilet cleaner and it will be good-to-go.
Sean Allen
Sean, why?----what is wrong with the toilet? :)
I see the term satisfactory a lot. Is that a similar term? Very nice blog and lovely toilet illustration!!
Barbara, I think that whatever terms like this that get used "can" be OK as long as all parties are ont the same page as to what they mean. For example what is "satisfactory" for a component that is 100 years old has a different meaning than when used on something 1 year old. What is satisfactory to one person might not be satisfactory to another. A lot of people would have a problem with the toilet above being called "satisfactory"----but there might be someone somewhere on the planet that would be greatful to find such a device:)
Before I ever started my home inspection company back in October 2001, my attorneys were able to show me lawsuits telling me that "serviceable" was not an acceptable term in my job. So be it. The lawsuit in question had a home inspection report where the water heater was not accessible, but what could be seen from 20 feet away looked okay, so it was passed off as serviceable. The only thing serviceable about it was that when all the furnishings and storage in the garage were removed, one could get to the water heater to service it, ergo "serviceable." Unfortunately, the only thing that was "serviceable" on it was disconnecting it and replacing it, ergo the lawsuit.
Courts here time and time again are telling home inspectors that they have knowledge that needs to be conveyed to their Clients. Such knowledge can include asbestos insulation on the water heater exhaust flue, lack of seismic straps, lack of a raised platform in the garage, etc.
A definite 'broad' term that shouldn't be used.
That's one nasty toilet! I wonder who was supposed to clean it last? I always hate to see the lid left in the up position! LOL
Russel----right on
Lyn, that is my thinking
Lizette, you have perhaps caught on to the only significant defect:)
I honestly never thought of using the word in relation to inspections. I guess the same goes for operable. I suppose on that faucet that would mean that the handles turned, now water that is another subject altogether.
Toilet is gross - and ................ PS you are out of T.P.
Jack----good one. It "turned on---and you wanted water too?"
Kathleen, I called out to have the toilet paper roll replaced:)
Charlie,
I have a distaste for the word serviceable as well. I have never used it. I think you're right on with how some guys bang em out.
The problem is many inspectors are deliberately vague or oblique in a misguided assumption that it somehow covers their a**. The best way to cover your fanny is to do the absolute best job you can and continue to learn. No big secret.
You hit on another pet peeve of mine, reports. I can not tell you how it irks me when some inspector touts how good they are because they use this report or that report. If you can't write an intelligent sentence or know the difference between a rafter and a rain gutter, the report you generate isn't going mean a whole lot.
Wow, you got me going.
James, it sounds like we have a lot of the same pet peeves. If you wander around the Internet and check out the sample reports of "most" home inspectors it is frankly----embarrassing. I went to one once and it was all check-list with no narrative and it repeated itself three times. I assume the repeats was some sort of "glitch"----but come on guys can you say "PROOF-READ"? The foot you stick out on the Internet should not be in your mouth:)
Charlie, You know what they say about great minds:) The same can be said for some of those web sites.
James, I think all professions have people that are "going through the motions" I guess.