House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: When we purchased our home, the home inspection report listed the furnace as “serviceable.” After moving in, we had problems with heating, so we called a heating contractor. He said we have a Premier furnace that was recalled because of major safety problems. So now we have to buy a new furnace. Our Realtor says the home inspector is responsible. But the home inspector says he can’t be expected to know about every product that’s been recalled. Is the home inspector liable for having approved the furnace, or are we stuck with the expense ourselves? Jessica

Dear Jessica: Home inspectors, in most cases, are not liable for product recall notices. But the Premier furnace matter is not a typical recall. It is probably the most widely publicized, most well known recall to occur in many years. It has been a frequent subject of discussion among home inspectors, and even among Realtors, since 1999, the topic of seminars, trade journals, even newspaper articles.

It would be difficult for a home inspector to have missed the issue, unless he were new to the inspection business. For a qualified home inspector, failure to recognize a Premier furnace as a potential safety hazard constitutes professional negligence.

It should be noted, however, that not all Premier furnaces are subject to the recall. This only applies to models equipped with nox rods in the burner chambers. These fixtures can be identified by the “x” at the end of the model number. On the other hand, Premier models that are not subject to the recall often have problems with the venting of combustion exhaust. A home inspector who carefully examines furnaces while they are in operation would notice this.

Your home inspector should reconsider the matter of his liability and let this be a professional learning experience.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Home inspectors perform an inadequate service, a fact that is overlooked in your column. I hired an inspector not long ago and found his work to be a complete waste of money. All he did was look around and report the obvious. I could have done as much myself instead of paying a so-called “expert.” Homebuyers deserve better than this. For example, why don’t home inspectors look under carpets for asbestos, mold, or signs of vermin? Your interest in promoting home inspectors prevents you from understanding this. Get a clue. William

Dear William: Home inspection can be a waste of money or a valuable benefit, depending on the quality of the home inspector you hire. If your home inspector did little more than “look around,” you have a legitimate grievance, but not a case against an entire profession.

This column frequently identifies negligent home inspectors, but it also recommends inspectors who are qualified and experienced, who provide detailed evaluations of homes, and who disclose defects that could not be found in the course of a simple “look around.” For example, an inspector I know found the following defects in just the past week:

1. Over-spanned framing in an attic, causing the roof to sag.
2. Rust damage in the burner chamber of a gas furnace.
3. A disconnected safety shutoff switch in a forced air furnace.
4. Circuit breakers that were oversized for the wires in the circuit.
5. Faulty grounding in an electrical subpanel.
6. Buried gas piping that lacked rust protection.
7. A bathtub whirlpool pump that was not grounded.
8. Lack of tempered safety glass at a staircase landing.
9. A fireplace chimney that was too short at the roof.
10. Improper placement of piers under a home.
    

These are typical examples of defects routinely reported by qualified home inspectors; defects that would not be discovered by homebuyers conducting their own walkthrough inspection or by inspectors with inadequate experience.

As for your suggestion that home inspectors check beneath carpets for asbestos, mold, or vermin:

1. How much carpet should home inspectors lift? Should they raise a few corners or totally roll back the carpets in each room? If they don’t do it all, how can we be sure they will not miss a serious problem?
2. How do we explain to sellers that we must move their furniture to enable inspection beneath the carpets? If sellers agree to this intrusive process, how many additional hours will be needed to complete the inspection, and how much should inspectors charge for this additional time?
3. If furniture or personal items are damaged while being moved (i.e. a broken vase or a scratched table), who should pay for repair or replacement?
4. Once the carpets have been laid back down, who should pay the carpet layer who refastens the edges to the tack strips?
   

Practicality imposes reasonable limits on home inspectors. An inspector cannot view everything without creating unacceptable problems. In spite of these restraints, a truly qualified home inspector can find considerable numbers of defects, providing valuable disclosure to home buyers. If you should ever hire another inspector, be sure to find someone who is truly qualified.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Some of your answers to electrical questions reveal that you are obviously unschooled. In one article, you talked about what home inspectors look for in a breaker panel, and your ideas were totally wrong. Here are three examples:

1) You said that home inspectors report when circuits are over-fused. I am a licensed master electrician and have been in the trade for nearly 50 years, but I couldn’t tell from looking if a wire was over-fused.

2) You say that home inspectors check for improper grounding in a panel. How do they do this? Do you measure resistance to earth or simply make assumptions by viewing the wire ends?

3) You say that panels should not be used as “raceways.” In all my years in the trade, I’ve never seen an instance where someone wired a panel that way, nor can I think of any reason for doing so.

Perhaps you need to brush up on the National Electrical Code. Furthermore, I’ll bet you don’t have the guts to publish this letter. If you’re not going to be accountable for what you “inspect” and what you publish, stop picking folks’ pockets. Nicholas

Dear Nicholas: Your letter was just published. That aside, let’s review your three points of disagreement regarding inspections of breaker panels by home inspectors.

1. As a master electrician of 50 years, you say that you “couldn’t tell from looking if a wire was over-fused.” So let’s take a common example: How about a #12 gauge wire (rated at 20 amps) that is connected to a 50 amp circuit breaker. Would you not recognize that as “over-fused?” If that circuit were to have an overload of 40 amps, the breaker would not trip, and the result could be a house fire. Wouldn’t a home inspector be justified in disclosing that condition and recommending repair by a licensed electrician?
2. You ask how home inspectors check a panel for improper grounding and whether they do so by measuring resistance to earth. Home inspections are limited to visual observations. They do not involve specialized tests such as measuring resistance. However, there are common grounding violations that are routinely reported by home inspectors. For example, ground and neutral wires that are not separated in a subpanel; a ground bus that is not bonded to the panel; a neutral bus that is connected to a bond jumper in a subpanel; bundled ground wires with a single wire used as a bond; the lack of a grounding rod for the system, etc. Conditions such as these are code violations in most instances and warrant disclosure when discovered by a home inspector.
   
3. Finally, you say you’ve never seen an instance where a breaker panel was improperly used as a raceway. We can agree that this is not a common occurrence, but there are instances where a full panel is used as a conduit for unidentified wires. In such cases, further evaluation by a licensed electrician is warranted, and a home inspector would be justified in making that recommendation.

Home inspectors, as you suggest, should be accountable for the conditions they inspect and report. And accountability demands full disclosure of conditions that are inherently or potentially hazardous. A qualified home inspector would be remiss in overlooking conditions such as those listed above. Likewise would a master electrician with 50 years of experience.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: My home was built around 1970 and the electrical wiring is aluminum. I’ve never noticed any of the danger signs commonly associated with aluminum wire, such as warm face plates on outlets and switches, flickering lights, etc. I may soon be selling the home and am wondering what to do. Since I’ve gone this long without any problems, would you recommend that I upgrade the wire ends? If I do nothing, do you think the aluminum wiring may be a deal breaker? Michael

Dear Michael: You have raised two separate issues: the safety of aluminum wiring and the effects that aluminum wire could have on a real estate sale. Let’s take these in order.

Aluminum wiring has been the cause of numerous house fires. This is because the wire connections at outlets, lights, switches, and breakers can become loose, and these slack fittings are prone to overheating. The recommended upgrade for aluminum wire connections is to add copper wire ends, commonly known as “pigtails,” and to secure these to the aluminum wires with connectors that are specifically designed for this purpose.

Aluminum wire was commonly used for outlets, lights, switches, and other branch circuits from the late 1960s through the early 1970s. When aluminum connections were recognized as a significant fire hazard, this practice was abandoned.

Many homes with aluminum wiring have shown no apparent signs of loose or overheated wires, but it should not be assumed, in such cases, that all is OK. Overheated outlets may not be located where discovery is likely. A hot cover plate behind a bed or refrigerator, for example, might go unnoticed for years, until a wall fire suddenly occurs. In some homes, removal of drywall during a remodel has revealed wire insulation that was charred to a blackened crisp. With aluminum wire, the potential for disaster is always present, and one never knows when a loosened connection could cause a fire.

For these reasons, a retrofit of all aluminum wire ends by a qualified electrician is highly recommended. In matters of electrical safety, it is best to err on the side of caution; to weigh the risks in terms of potential consequences, rather than the seeming unlikelihood of an occurrence. A fire might never happen, but if it did, what are the potential results? From that perspective, it is always wise to play it safe.

As for the effects of aluminum wiring in a real estate transaction: a qualified home inspector will definitely identify aluminum branch wiring as a safety hazard and recommend upgrade. Prudent homebuyers will take such disclosures very seriously. Instead of waiting for “red flags” to disrupt a purchase transaction, have the wiring addressed prior to listing the home for sale.

As a final note: Aluminum wiring is still used for 220 volt circuits and is regarded as safe for that use if the connectors are rated for aluminum wiring and if the wire ends are treated with an antioxidant compound to prevent corrosion.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I’m a Realtor and have recently found fault with your advice. You often emphasize the importance of hiring a home inspector who is highly experienced and who has a reputation for thoroughness. One of my listings was recently inspected by a very experienced inspector, but some of his findings turned out to be inaccurate. For example, the insulation in the attic was reported to be 5-8 inches deep. The inspector said this appeared inadequate for a relatively new home and he recommended that we check with the building department for insulation requirements. I called the contractor who installed the insulation and he said the insulation had settled but that it still had the same R-value. The other inspection error also occurred in the attic, specifically the work platform at the furnace. According to the home inspector, the platform should be 30 inches wide. But a carpenter I know said that a 24 inch work platform meets code. What good is an experienced home inspector if his disclosures are not reliable? Dennis

Dear Dennis: When differing disclosures arise in a real estate transaction, the wisest approach is to seek a third source of information, rather than to assume that one or the other disclosure is correct. It is also a good idea to weigh the relative credibility of each source. For example, when a home inspector says the attic insulation is not deep enough, this could be regarded as an unbiased opinion, whether or not it is correct, because the inspector has no vested interest in the quality or quantity of the insulation. He is simply expressing a professional opinion. The installer of the insulation, however, has an undeniable interest in the outcome of the disagreement. If the thickness of the insulation is substandard, then the installer is in a position of professional embarrassment and is liable for the cost of correction. Why then would his opinion be given greater weight than that of the home inspector? It should also be noted that there is a factual error in the installer’s response: When insulation settles, the R-value does not stay the same. It is a recognized fact that thickness and R-value are directly proportional. But final judgment between the installer and the home inspector should be determined by consulting the local building authority, as the home inspector suggested.

As for the work platform at the furnace, Section 307.3 of the Uniform Mechanical Code requires that the work platform be 30 inches wide. The 24-inch requirement pertains to the flooring that should extend from the attic access to the furnace. Common sense, in any event, would tend to favor a home inspector over a carpenter in matters of construction standards. As someone who has been both a carpenter and a home inspector, I can attest to this difference. Again, the conflict of opinions should have been settled by consulting the local building authority.

To assume that a home inspector is wrong, without verifying this assumption, allows faulty conditions to remain as is. This could lead to renewed disputes or other consequential damages at a later date.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I recently purchased a home from an investor who renovates and then resells old houses. Everything was going well until our main circuit breaker started tripping. An electrician told us that our new 100 amp service panel is connected on a 60 amp service line. He speculated that the seller installed the new panel himself, without a permit and without hiring an electrician. None of this was reported by our home inspector. In fact, he didn’t even remove the panel cover during the inspection, and now he claims that anything that was not visible is not within the scope of the inspection. Who is liable, the home inspector, the spec seller, or both? Chris

Dear Chris: Your home inspector should have removed the panel cover to inspect the breakers and wiring within. This is standard procedure for a competent home inspector. Inspection of the electrical system, if the inspector does a thorough job, should also consider the relative capacities of the service lines and the service panel. For the inspector to dismiss these oversights as conditions that were “not visible” is baseless denial.

When home inspectors correctly disclaim electrical defects that are not visible, they are referring to conditions that are concealed within the construction, hidden by personal property, or buried underground. But this disclaimer does not excuse blatant failure to remove the cover from a breaker panel. Inspectors who overlook this essential part of an inspection are professionally negligent.

The seller, of course, was also negligent, but this may have been a matter of electrical ignorance, rather than ill intent. On the other hand, replacing a breaker panel without a building permit is illegal, and a professional real estate investor should have known this. If a permit had been obtained, the municipal inspector would have required an upgrade of the service line, consistent with the capacity of the new panel. To address this issue now, an as-built permit should be obtained from the local building authority, and the power company should be notified that the service line needs upgrade.

But before you commence any repairs or upgrades, the home inspector and seller should be notified of the problem and given an opportunity to respond. Both are individually liable for lack of disclosure. If neither will take responsibility, you can provide them with formal invitations to small claims court. If you do this, be sure to have plenty of photos of faulty conditions and some written reports from electricians and other professionals.

As a final thought, a home inspector who did not remove a panel cover probably missed other issues in the course of his inspection. Therefore, a second inspection of the property is warranted. Find out who is the most thorough inspector in your area and get a second opinion on everything. You may find that additional defects should be addressed with the seller and with the first home inspector. If it becomes necessary to take legal action, consult an attorney for procedural advice.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: According to my home inspector, the popcorn ceilings in the home I’m buying have about 3% asbestos. He said this is not a problem, but I’m very concerned. Now I realize that I’ve been exposed to asbestos in many of the homes in which I’ve lived. So I’m trying to absorb this news without letting it depress me. How do I reassure myself that these ceilings are ok? I have 2 young sons who are active! What if they throw balls and things against the ceilings? What if they stand on their bunk bed and scrape the ceiling? How can I live with the knowledge that all this asbestos is hanging over our heads? Kim

Dear Kim: Don’t be overly alarmed about asbestos ceilings. High anxiety over residential asbestos is very common, given the many scary articles that have been published over the past 30 years. Asbestos panic is inconsistent with the actual level of risk posed by asbestos-containing materials such as acoustic “popcorn” ceilings.

All of the studies that connect asbestos exposure with lung disease involve people who have worked with asbestos in a full-time professional capacity, either manufacturing or installing asbestos products. It has never been proven that low-level exposures in a home cause health problems. Fear and worry over asbestos- containing materials in a home are therefore unwarranted.

Levels of 1% to 3% of asbestos are often found in acoustic ceilings installed prior to 1980 and in some homes built through the mid-1980s. Fortunately, the asbestos fibers in popcorn ceilings are not released unless the material is disturbed. One way to decrease the likelihood of fiber release is to have the ceilings thoroughly spray-painted. Paint seals the particles that comprise the textured surface, fusing them into a unified crust that is much less likely to crumble when touched, scraped, or impacted by indoor ball playing or by romping on the upper bunk.

Additionally, there are many acoustic ceilings that do not contain asbestos, and home inspectors should not make quantitative statements about asbestos content unless a written report from an asbestos test lab is available. To specify that a ceiling may contain a particular amount of asbestos, without a report to substantiate that disclosure, is professionally inappropriate for a home inspector.

Before assuming that the ceilings in a particular home contain asbestos, send three random samples of the material to an EPA certified lab for testing. If the results are positive and you decide to remove the ceiling texture, contact a licensed asbestos abatement contractor for a bid.

In recent years, many homeowners have removed acoustic ceilings for purposes of cosmetic renovation, not because of concern over asbestos. But when confronted with the high cost of asbestos removal, some have opted to cover the ceilings with a second layer of drywall. However, those who take this approach should be aware that disclosure will be necessary when the home is eventually sold. Otherwise, an unsuspecting future owner could contaminate the interior of the home when demolishing a ceiling that contains concealed asbestos.

For further information regarding residential asbestos, check the website of the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We read one of your articles on ventless gas fireplaces and are concerned about the safety of the one in our home. We have a code-approved unvented gas log fireplace. It has a built in carbon monoxide detector and other safety back-up devices, as listed in the owners manual. Are there any known problems with this type of setup? Bill

Dear Bill: Unvented gas log fireplaces are actually misnamed. They should be called interior-vented fireplaces. Most gas-burning fixtures, whether furnaces, water heaters, or fireplaces, vent combustion exhaust to the exterior. “Unvented” fireplaces vent exhaust to the interior of the building. Fortunately, there have been very few reported problems with these fixtures. But conceptually, they are at odds with the common sense of gas safety, and their inherent safety should not be taken for granted.

When gas is burned, the primary byproducts are carbon dioxide and water vapor. If gas combustion is incomplete for any reason, soot and carbon monoxide are also produced. Carbon monoxide, commonly recognized as an odorless, lethal gas, causes no harm when vented to the exterior of the dwelling. When vented into a home, it can cause debilitating sickness or death. For this reason, unvented gas log fireplaces are specially designed to maximize gas combustion. They are also equipped with carbon monoxide sensors, an oxygen depletion sensor, and a complex system of safety shutoff devices. As long as these safety features function perfectly, unvented gas fireplaces can operate without posing a threat to the health and safety of occupants.

The main concern with unvented gas fireplaces is not that they are likely to create a problem, but rather that no amount of well-intended safeguards can make any manmade device totally foolproof. It is possible for well-designed backup systems to fail, no matter how carefully manufactured, no matter how scrupulously engineered, no matter how well conceived. Tragic examples of this fact are two failed space shuttles, probably the most well built technological devices in history.

Nothing in the realm of human invention is 100% safe. The risks inherent in unvented gas fireplaces may be miniscule, but they cannot be deemed as nonexistent.

Those who have unvented gas fireplaces in their homes should exercise caution in the following ways:

1. Install carbon monoxide detectors in various places throughout the home.
2. Never leave the gas logs burning while you sleep.
3. Keep the fireplace doors open when the fixture is in use.
4. Be sure the gas log unit is not too big for the size of room in which it is installed.
   
5. Keep a window slightly open when the gas logs are burning.
6. Make sure that unvented gas logs are legal in your area.
7. Follow the manufacturer’s installation instructions and safety precautions to the letter.
   

In addition to air quality safety, remember that water vapor is also a byproduct of gas combustion. During dry weather, this may not pose a problem. But if humidity is increased to high levels, condensation and mold could be the results.

Problem such as these do not commonly occur, but again, it should not be assumed that unvented gas log systems are unconditionally safe.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I’m not sure how often to have my septic tank pumped, but I’ve heard two opinions on the subject. Some say I should pump the system every 1-2 years. Others say, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” Just leave it alone unless there’s a problem. Some even say that needless pumping can cause loosened solids to clog the leach lines. It’s been twelve years since my septic system has been pumped. What do you recommend? Ken

Dear Ken: The septic opinions you’ve heard are incorrect in opposite extremes. Pumping the tank every 1-2 years is needlessly excessive. As long as the bacterial environment in the tank is good, the solids should continue to decompose, and as long as the leach field was property installed and is not too old, the liquids should continue to be absorbed into the earth through the leach lines.

Maintaining the bacterial balance in the tank can be done simply and inexpensively. There are common products for this purpose, available in hardware stores. All that is needed is to flush the contents down the toilet once or twice a year. And care should be taken not to drain strong laundry detergents or other chemicals into the system.

To ensure that the system is performing adequately, the tank should probably be pumped every five years. The idea that pumping will clog the leach field is unfounded: pumping removes the solids from the system before they can flow downstream to the leach lines.

If you’ve gone 12 years without the system being pumped and inspected, you’re long overdue and should have this done soon.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We purchased a house last week, and our home inspector found no problems with the forced air furnace. But when the man from the gas company came to turn on the service, he said there is a hole in the heat exchanger, and he “red flagged” the furnace as unsafe and unusable. What recourse do we have? Thomas

Dear Thomas: Heat exchangers are routinely disclaimed by home inspectors because they are located within the recesses of the furnace and are largely inaccessible. Cracks or holes in heat exchangers often occur in places that are not visible without dismantling the furnace, and such conditions are considered to be outside the scope of a home inspection.

A fair rebuttal to this disclaimer is that some portions of heat exchangers are exposed to view at the burner access, and home inspectors are supposed to disclose defects that are visible and accessible. The deciding factor in your case is that the hole in the heat exchanger may have been visible without dismantling the furnace. What also matters is whether there were any other indications of furnace damage. For example, if there were any irregularities in the flame pattern or the flame color, or if there was rust or soot in the burner chamber, or if there were black stains on the walls or ceilings near the air registers, such conditions would have been warning signs indicating possible damage to the heat exchanger.

Any observable defects in the heating system should have been reported by the home inspector, with a recommendation for further evaluation by a licensed HVAC contractor. If visible conditions such as these were overlooked, the inspector is liable.

Dear Barry: I’m not sure how often to have my septic tank pumped, but I’ve heard two opinions on the subject. Some say I should pump the system every 1-2 years. Others say, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” Just leave it alone unless there’s a problem. Some even say that needless pumping can cause loosened solids to clog the leach lines. It’s been twelve years since my septic system has been pumped. What do you recommend? Ken

Dear Ken: The septic opinions you’ve heard are incorrect in opposite extremes. Pumping the tank every 1-2 years is needlessly excessive. As long as the bacterial environment in the tank is good, the solids should continue to decompose, and as long as the leach field was property installed and is not too old, the liquids should continue to be absorbed into the earth through the leach lines.

Maintaining the bacterial balance in the tank can be done simply and inexpensively. There are common products for this purpose, available in hardware stores. All that is needed is to flush the contents down the toilet once or twice a year. And care should be taken not to drain strong laundry detergents or other chemicals into the system.

To ensure that the system is performing adequately, the tank should probably be pumped every five years. The idea that pumping will clog the leach field is unfounded: pumping removes the solids from the system before they can flow downstream to the leach lines.

If you’ve gone 12 years without the system being pumped and inspected, you’re long overdue and should have this done soon.