What happens when the home inspector wants to perform the home inspection, then test for meth contamination, and ultimately get paid the big bucks to decontaminate the same home. It is possible. It is happening. But this does not make it right. Why? It is a conflict of interest that changes the professional from a neutral third party to a sampler with an incredible vested interest in the outcome of the meth test. Here is a real life scenario...

OCTOBER 11, 2011 - I received a phone call from an agent explaining a difficult meth sampling scenario that sheds a bad light on the home inspection, meth sampling, and meth decontamination professions, as a result of one entity being either unaware, or just plain greedy.

“Michael, I am listing a home that received an accepted offer from a buyer who hired a home inspector to inspect the home. The inspector performed the home inspection and then tested for meth contamination. The results came back at .4 and the inspector turned the results in to the Utah County Health Department and the home is now listed as a ‘Meth House’. The inspector then submitted a bid for $4,000.00 to the buyer and the seller to decontaminate the newly renovated home. The buyer backed out of the deal and the inspector defended his actions of turning in the home to the Health Department. He then stressed that his bid for decontamination was far less than any of his competitors. What can we do now?”

Wow... The apparent greed of this home inspector/meth sampler/meth decontaminator has heaped loads of liability upon his shoulders. Why? The method of handling the meth results apparently has caused the sale of the home to die and his purported actions incriminate his credibility.

Here are the key issues in question...

1) HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORTING - In Utah, meth sampling firms are NOT required by law to report meth test lab results to the local health department. Reporting lab results to the health Department is only required when decontamination work is contracted with a Certified Decontamination Specialist.

NOTE: 9/2010 - Reporting Requirements - Section 19-6-904 of the Illegal Drug Operations Site Reporting and Decontamination Act states that a Certified Decontamination Specialist is required to report to the local health department the location of any property that is the subject of decontamination work by that decontamination specialist. For further information on reporting requirements, please contact a local health department representative.

2) BUYER CLIENT - In this real life scenario, the client of the initial test was the prospective buyer and NOT the owner of the home. The property owner was never notified about the test results until their home was already reported to the Health Department. This may have been due to a misunderstanding of the sampler

NOTE: I question whether the health Department added the home to a list because the results are under the current Utah Decontamination Standard.

3) .4 SAMPLING RESULT - The current Utah decontamination standard is 1.0 ug/100 cm2. The real scenario lab results of 0.4 ug/100 cm2 is below the current Utah Decontamination Standard.

4) CONFLICT OF INTEREST - The home inspector used the home inspection as a vehicle to garner additional work in a separate field. This is a conflict of interest. Performing the meth sampling along with the home inspection was allowed as one of many additional inspection services, but bidding to decontaminate the home created a conflict of interest because a positive result would potentially generate additional revenue for the inspector/decontaminator. Most home inspection trade association “Code of Ethics” prohibit this, as do many State licensing laws. It is interesting to note that Utah has no home inspection licensing laws. This particular inspector is a Utah Certified Decontamination Specialist, but he violated his first responsibility as a Home Inspector when he decided to bid on repair work in the home he inspected.

NOTE: Once you give away your neutral third party position in an inspection transaction, then you can never get it back again. An inspector with a vested interest is of no use to anybody because their findings are always in question.

5) CHEAP TESTING FEES - The home inspector performed the meth sampling for lab fees only. This meant that he collected the sample in a Utah County home and then transported the sample to the lab in Salt Lake County for no financial gain. This defies good business practices and would only be profitable if the test came back with meth contaminant that would potentially gain the inspector his bidded $4,000.00 decontamination job. BEWARE OF CHEAP METH TESTING FEES!

6) CHEAP DECONTAMINATION FEES - $4,000.00 sounds like a lot, but that under cuts most other Utah decontamination firms by at least $2,000.00 for similar work.

7) BELOW DECONTAMINATION STANDARD RESULTS - Properties that yield sampling lab results lower than the current Utah Decontamination Standard of 1.0 ug/100 cm2 are not required to be decontaminated. Yes, decontamination can still be performed, but further testing on the newly remodeled home to identify exactly where contaminate is located would be a more prudent course of action. In the above scenario, the home had been completely remodeled before testing was performed. This included painting cabinets and floor coverings. I do not know of any prudent homeowner that would throw out brand new carpeting because of a 0.4 ug/100 cm2 lab result. Since the test performed was a 4 location composite sample, then it is still unclear what component/area was contaminated. Rational risk evaluation thinking should prevail in these situations.

8) SELLER DAMAGE RECOVERY - If the prospective buyer walked because of the 0.4 ug/100 cm2 meth sampling result, then the seller of the home has incurred damages in the form of a lost sale and the listing agent has incurred damaged in the form of a lost commission. The meth sampling results in the above scenario are questionable at best and the home inspector/meth sampler/meth decontaminator’s integrity is greatly impugned by his standing to gain a great deal financially from positive meth sample results. This does not mean that hi was dishonest. It means that he is in a gray area where he is no longer a neutral third party performing the testing. This is a black eye to those who inspect, those who sample, and those who decontaminate. It leaves the professional above in a poorly defensible position due to double dipping to get both the sampling and the decontamination fees. Legal, yes. Ethical; anything but. This could have easily been resolved by his deferring any and all decontamination steps to other Utah Decontamination Specialists. The temptation to take all of the fees involved is obviously just too great since it is NOT prohibited by law. But remember, involving a neutral third party for testing is always the best course of action.