I agree Lyle, but this is just another point that the quality of inspectors is inadequate. Reports with spelling or grammatical errors obviously comment on the knowledge and education of the inspector, bringing his qualification to do the job properly into question.  As an aside I love to read reports from the Edwardian period from Engineers of all types. They are often beautifully crafted in the probabilities of problems and whilst appearing specific have a vagueness ideal for avoiding any comeback! A phrase in a drains report I have is " the inverts appear to be clean and shiny suggesting adequate falls, and have no resting liquid or solid matter". I wonder why present day electrical reports are not like that: "The cables appear in good condition, are correctly sized for the circuit protective devices and have tight and bright connections to all terminals". This says two things, the chap knows what to look for and that having looked he is satisfied that all is well. So much better than a loop Z reading and a tick, both of which say nothing to the customer!

One must also take into account that many of today's 'Inspectors' have been fastracked by dubious training companies in response to the Govt's 'Landlord's Requirements' and I suspect that many candidates 1st language is not English.

David Stone said:

Reports with spelling or grammatical errors obviously comment on the knowledge and education of the inspector, bringing his qualification to do the job properly into question. 

Very sad to read this "judgement". Bad spelling / grammar can be indicative of things other than a capability to do a job properly ... I needn't list the reasons here; it ought to be enough to say that Engineering and neurodiversity are often an excellent match.

[Edited to correct a grammatical error ]

David Stone said:

Reports with spelling or grammatical errors obviously comment on the knowledge and education of the inspector, bringing his qualification to do the job properly into question. 

Very sad to read this "judgement". Bad spelling / grammar can be indicative of things other than a capability to do a job properly ... I needn't list the reasons here; it ought to be enough to say that Engineering and neurodiversity are often an excellent match.

[Edited to correct a grammatical error ]

What are you saying there Graham? Neurodiverse people cannot right proper? 

Chris Pearson said:

What are you saying there Graham? Neurodiverse people cannot right proper?

Definitely not ... that would be offensive!

There are a number of different factors that neurodiversity covers, and some of those factors may well be evidenced by spelling/grammar not meeting certain people's expectations.

I was teasing slightly, but neurodiverse folk tend to like rules, which include not only maths and physics, but also grammar.

That is not a good remark by you Graham, the stickler for "standards". Standard English is extremely important, the fact that it is being seriously corrupted, with the attendant lack of clarity and accuracy, is a complete disgrace. This recent "thing" that all faults must be apologised for in case someone has some problem is part of the general degradation of society. An electrical installation (new) is seriously defective, but the "electrician" has some problem with his understanding? That's OK then, it must be passed as excellent even if highly dangerous?  Talk about double standards!

David Stone said:

That is not a good remark by you Graham, the stickler for "standards". Standard English is extremely important, the fact that it is being seriously corrupted, with the attendant lack of clarity and accuracy, is a complete disgrace. This recent "thing" that all faults must be apologised for in case someone has some problem is part of the general degradation of society

Oh well, I guess I'd better spell out the words dyslexia and dyspraxia (although these are only examples).

Your generalisation cuts off a number of VERY capable individuals. (I know I need to be very careful naming things, because not that all dyslexics and dyspraxics have issues with spelling and grammar on a day-to-day basis.)

Not everything is black-and-white, regardless of standards, as Engineers ought to know.

Chris Pearson said:

I was teasing slightly, but neurodiverse folk tend to like rules, which include not only maths and physics, but also grammar.

As above, neurodiversity comes in a number of guises, and we're not just talking autism spectrum (for example).

Until the condition affects the ability to do the job in hand, then regrettably  it becomes a disability to be managed, just as some are not good at height or in confined spaces.
Now it may be that at the sort of place I have worked there are a number of very clever boffin types. Some of the finest however are the sort you have keep away from customers, and arrange someone else to translate their notes and explanations into something more digestible by mere neurotypicals. Others are more all-round. It is the way people are. I know I'd be no good managing a post office - luckily no-one has asked me to do so, and if they did I'd hope I'd be honest enough to decline.

Back to the OP topic if one is writing reports for the digestion of the public, then it needs to be in a form they can understand. If that means getting it typed up and proof-read back at base before sending out, then so be it. Folk do need to know when their paperwork skills become an issue, then it can be fixed.

Mike

gkenyon said:

Oh well, I guess I'd better spell out the words dyslexia and dyspraxia

If by dyspraxia, you mean clumsiness, isn't that just somewhere to the left (or right if you prefer) of the normal curve with folk like joiners, surgeons (hopefully, but not always), and watch makers somewhere to the right.

But then you have things like ideational dyspraxia, which classically would be sealing an envelope before inserting a letter,  but could also be a problem for an electrician (putting a cable into a terminal before stripping it).

Issue being, there's a wide range of issues ... and you can't just simply judge "that will make someone a rubbish xxx' in the way that seems to be implied here.

There are very capable electricians and engineers out there, and, as you develop and grow, you learn to deal with whatever issues there are (or not).

However, some people just might never get the spelling and punctuation spot-on ... does that mean, as David and Mike are implying, that this is indicative of a problem?

Definitely not.

People who are good at English at school, perhaps with an academic education, even getting top marks for their academic reports, sadly have to re-learn report writing for the business world. In fact, the way we used to write documents and reports back in the 1990s is nothing like the way we present them today.

At the end of the day, in my view, it's not the basic spelling and grammar that we ought to be looking at, but a fitness for purpose (which does not include 100 % correct spelling, colon before a bulleted or numbered list, with semicolons at the end of each item. In fact,

If a summary, or report, has a succinct list of issues etc. that's readily recognisable and comprehensible, and gets the message across, I think it does the trick - even if the spelling and punctuation might not be correct.

Yes, care over the report - write in block capitals if you have to hand-write in that manner, fine by me - but I won't be marking anyone down on their spelling and grammar, but the technical content.

And finally ... quickly typing in a Forum like this, we all make mistakes, and some modern technology (predictive text) seems to be invented to purposefully trip up those involved in technical writing. Some of us will notice, however, more subtle spelling errors and grammatical faux-pas, such as incorrect 'practice' vs 'practise' and misuse of commas, semi-colons and colons; however, we don't question the integrity and competence of the poster based on that, do we? (Or, at least, I hope we don't?)