House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I’ve purchased six homes during the past 20 years and have always gotten home inspections. But I recently bought my first commercial property, a four-unit office building, and opted to forego an inspection on the advice of my agent. The agent explained that commercial properties are different from homes and only need to be checked by a structural engineer. I didn’t question this advice and am now lamenting that error. It’s been six months since the close of escrow, and complaints from the tenants are endless. The plumbing is bad, the heating rarely works, and the roof leaks like a screen. Why would a commercial agent advise against an inspection? Larry

Dear Larry: The failure to recommend a property inspection is a common problem with many commercial real estate agents. Fortunately, this is not the case everywhere. In some cities and towns, commercial agents routinely recommend inspections to their buyers, while in other locales, the misguided belief that commercial properties don’t need to be inspected leads to major breaches in defect disclosure.

At the root of the problem is a failure to apply common sense. The kinds of defects that would be reported during a home inspection are just as likely to be found in a commercial building, whether it be offices, stores, a restaurant, a medical clinic, etc. Roofing materials, for example, are subject to the same installation standards and are just as likely to become worn with age. Electrical violations involve the same issues of personal safety and fire prevention, whether the building is a house or an office. Plumbing problems are just as costly and annoying whether they occur in a master bathroom or a janitorial utility room. And the lack of heat on a frigid morning is just as unpleasant where you work as where you live.

Your agent’s advice to hire a structural engineer would have been wise in addition to, not instead of, a full property inspection. After all, what can the engineer tell you about the wiring in the breaker panels, the grounding of wall outlets, the function of the heating and air conditioning systems, the condition of the roofing, the safety of stairs and railings, the functional conditions of toilets and sinks, the water pressure, and so on?

In matters of defect disclosure, the same rules and reasons that motivate the hiring of a home inspector apply to the purchase of commercial property. Failure to recognize this fact can be a costly error for buyers and is a breach in the professionalism of far too many commercial Realtors. The purchase of commercial property involves enormous financial commitments, and the risks inherent to that kind of investment can be reduced by knowing more about the condition of the property being purchased. This should be common knowledge among agents who specialize in commercial property. Those agents who have not yet realized this need to reconsider the matter. Detailed property inspections are financially beneficial to commercial buyers and reduce the disclosure liability of commercial agents and brokers.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: When I bought my home, the seller paid for the home inspection. That was a red flag that I failed to heed. Now that I’ve moved into the home, it’s clear that the inspector, who was recommended by the real estate agent, was working for the seller’s interests, not mine. The fireplace was not even included in the inspection, and a chimney sweep has now discovered loose bricks, requiring $300 of repair. And yesterday, I learned that the debris on the skylights is actually dried tape, used to seal the cracks and to secure the loose frames. The cost to replace the five bad skylights will be nearly $800. I should have hired my own home inspector, someone who would look out for my interests. Is there any recourse for me at this point? Helen

Dear Helen: Complaints about substandard home inspections are among the most common subjects in my email inbox. In most cases, however, faulty inspections occur when inspectors are unqualified and inexperienced; not because of deliberate intentions by inspectors to favor the interests of sellers. Reports of inspectors who compromise disclosure for the sake of agent referrals are often heard, but in my experience such inspectors are rare. Most home inspectors are painfully aware of the legal and financial liability associated with incomplete disclosure and are unwilling to take such risks for fraudulant short-term gains. In fact, there are many home inspectors who would inspect a home with the same degree of thoroughness whether the inspection were being done for the buyer, the seller, or the inspector’s own family.

In your case, the inspector, regardless of motives, appears to have done a very substandard inspection. Fireplaces are included in the Standards of Practice of all recognized home inspector associations, such as the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) and the National Association of Home Inspectors (NAHI). Failure to inspect the fireplace indicates a significant lack of professionalism. Equally problematic is the inspector’s failure to identify the defective skylights. This should have been part of the roof inspection, also specified in the Standards of Practice for the profession.

The responsibility for the inadequate inspection is shared, of course, by the agent who recommended the inspector. Real estate professionals are familiar with the inspectors who work in their areas of business. They know which inspectors perform thorough and comprehensive evaluations of homes. Fortunately, there are agents who routinely recommend the best inspectors. Unfortunately, there are other agents who view such inspectors as “deal killers” and who avoid those inspectors when making referrals to clients.
Before you take action regarding the lack of disclosure, have your home reinspected by someone who is truly qualified. This will probably inform you of additional defects, not yet discovered and not reported by the seller’s inspector. Try to find an inspector with many years of experience and a reputation for comprehensive thoroughness. Once you have a detailed report, you’ll be able to address these issues with the sellers, the agent, and the sellers’ home inspector.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: For the past several years, we’ve had ongoing problems with our old clay sewer main. The line has to be rooted every few months, and the cost to install a new line would be about $15,000. Why is this problem so persistent, and what, if anything, can be done to solve it without spending a fortune? Gayle

Dear Gayle: Tree roots typically invade older types of sewer mains, where cracks and loose fittings allow roots to enter. Old clay sewer mains are highly susceptible to root intrusion because the mortar that was used to seal the fittings has deteriorated with age and because old clay pipes often have cracks. As roots enter these openings, they grow thicker, causing increasing damage to the pipes and enabling further root invasion. Root growth into sewer pipes may increase during dry weather because seepage from the pipes may be the only available ground moisture. But regardless of wet or dry conditions, roots are attracted to sewer pipes because the effluent contains organic nutrients as well as water, and this provides an enticing meal for hungry trees and shrubs.

Clearing a clogged sewer line with a rooter machine provides a temporary respite at best because rooting merely prunes the root ends that have entered the pipe. Once the plumber’s machine is withdrawn, the roots begin to grow again, and six months later the plumber is back. Chemical products can be flushed down the drain to kill these roots, but such products are not nearly as effective as portrayed in advertisements

The most common long-term solution is to replace the old sewer lines — obviously a very expensive answer to the problem. A less costly solution, offered by some plumbing companies, is the installation of a special synthetic lining in the old sewer main. With this method, the cost of excavation is eliminated and the seepage that attracts tree roots is terminated.

Dear Barry: I’m preparing to remodel my bathroom and am wondering if I should take a permit for the work. Basically, I have two questions: If the bathroom changes are not structural, do I need a permit? And when the city inspector comes to inspect the bathroom work – does he have the right to inspect other portions of my property where work may have been done without a permit? Dave

Dear Dave: If the bathroom remodel involves changes to the plumbing or electrical systems, a permit is definitely required. Alterations do not have to be structural for the building department to have authority over the project.

The building inspector has the right to cite any noncomplying conditions that are observed on the property. However, when the permit involves a limited area, most building inspectors are not this far-reaching in their approach. In most cases, they consider only the work that is currently in progress. But don’t take refuge in that assurance. The inspector has the power to be proactive regarding conditions of noncompliance on your property. In other words, don’t expect the worst, but be prepared for it.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I purchased a home several months ago and had it inspected. But the home inspector (in my opinion) missed an important defect. One room has old-looking vinyl flooring which (I recently discovered) has asbestos in the backing. I realize that the asbestos is safety contained as long as the flooring is not disturbed, but homeowners tear up flooring all the time. Based on the age, I feel the inspector should have warned me that the flooring was likely to contain asbestos. Had I known, I would have negotiated with the seller to help cover the cost of having the flooring safely removed. Do you believe the inspector bears any liability? William

Dear William: It is not common practice for home inspectors to list all of the building materials likely to contain asbestos. If they did, the list would include asphalt composition roofing materials, roof mastic, drywall joint compound, old air duct insulation, transite flue pipes, acoustic ceiling texture, adhesive mastics for flooring and other applications, interior plaster, some exterior stucco, asphalt floor tiles, vinyl floor tiles, and of course, sheet vinyl flooring. But because environmental hazards are not within the scope of a general visual home inspection, this kind of disclosure is typically not included in a home inspection report, except where asbestos materials are exposed and friable, such as acoustic sprayed ceilings.

If your inspector had disclosed the possibility of asbestos in the vinyl floor backing, this would not have obligated the seller to pay for removal of the material. Homes are generally sold on an as-is basis. Conditions commonly subject to negotiation would include safety hazards, serious physical damage, active leakage, inoperable fixtures, or significant construction defects. The fact that you wanted to replace the flooring after acquiring the property did not obligate the seller to share in the costs of those upgrades. Most sellers would not agree to pay for asbestos removal in that type of situation. For these reasons, the home inspector is not liable for nondisclosure.

Dear Barry: A heating contractor who inspected our furnace said he found a crack in the firebox. He said that he caulked the crack so we could use the furnace temporarily. We had another contractor take a look, but he said there were no signs of any caulking. The cost to replace the furnace is about $2000. Where can we look to see if caulking has been done? Marion

Dear Marion: Whether or not the caulking was done is irrelevant. No sensible heating contractor would caulk a cracked firebox in a furnace. A cracked heat exchanger is extremely dangerous. Those cracks could allow deadly carbon monoxide to enter your home. The standard recommendation in such cases is to abandon use of the system and to replace the heat exchanger or the furnace without delay. The cost in dollars may be high, but compared to the potential risk, it is incidental. Your best course of action is to find a heating contractor who can definitively evaluate your furnace.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: The sellers of the house we are buying have turned off the water service. Our home inspector was concerned about this, but dismissed it when the sellers told him they did it because the house was vacant. But this leaves us with lingering doubts. Perhaps there are some plumbing problems, such as leaks, that they’re hiding. What do you think we should do? Yehuda

Dear Yehuda: For a qualified home inspector, the sellers’ reasons for turning off the water service are irrelevant. The inspector’s singular objective is to evaluate pertinent aspects of the property, and that includes the operational condition of the plumbing system. Without water service, a plumbing evaluation is not possible, and the home inspection cannot be completed.

When any utility service is off during a home inspection, the inspection report should state that the inspection could not be completed and that the service should be restored to enable completion of the inspection prior to close of escrow. Without water, it is not possible to evaluate the performance of the sinks, faucets, drains, toilets, tubs, showers, dishwasher, garbage disposal, water heater, etc. Neither is it possible to check the water pressure, to inspect fittings for leaks, or to determine if water volume is reduced when multiple fixtures are in use.

If your home inspector did not stipulate that the water should be turned on to enable a full inspection, then you are not dealing with a qualified inspector. In that case, you should find another inspector and insist that there be functional water service when the inspection is performed.

Dear Barry: When I bought my house, the home inspector found no problem with the fireplace. But now, a chimney maintenance company has reported some issues. First, there is no firebrick on the sides of the firebox — just mortar and stone construction. While these sidewalls are greater than 12 inches thick, I was advised not to use the fireplace until it is verified that these walls are solid masonry, with no cavities. Also, the smoke chamber was built with corbelled walls (stepped) rather than smooth walls. I was told that this encourages creosote build-up, increasing the likelihood of a chimney fire, and was advised not to use the fireplace until a ceramic coating has been applied. Do you think the inspector is liable for repair costs? Bill

Dear Bill: If the sidewalls are as thick as they appear, without cavities, then the fixture is probably safe to use. If the corbelled masonry is intact and does not appear to be causing a build-up of creosote, it may also be safe to use. However, since these conditions indicate noncompliance with current fireplace standards, a home inspector would be prudent in recommending further evaluation by a qualified fireplace expert. If the inspector made no such recommendation, he may be insufficiently familiar with fireplace issues. In that case, he could be liable for failure to report suspect conditions. On the other hand, if these conditions do not manifest any safety-related problems, there may be no cause to take issue with the inspector. Either way, you should notify the inspector regarding your concerns and ask that he take a second look at the fireplace.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: The home inspectors in my area, myself among them, have an ongoing debate with local electricians. When we see two wires connected to a circuit breaker, we report this as “double-tapping.” As far as I know, only Square D brand type QO breakers are approved for use with two wires, but the electricians say it’s OK with other brands as well, such as Cutler-Hammer type CH breakers. But when I checked the Cutler-Hammer website, I found nothing about double-tapping being OK with their breakers. To make matters worse, some of the electricians in my area seem openly hostile toward home inspectors and say that we are clueless on this and other issues. Could you please provide some clarity on this point of contention? Stephen

Dear Stephen: Disagreements between home inspectors and contractors are common, occurring not only with electricians, but with experts in plumbing, roofing, fireplaces, furnaces, framing, etc. Sometimes home inspectors are correct, and sometimes they are not. All participants in these debates should therefore be open-minded, mutually respectful, and humble in their approaches to one another.

In determining when double-tapping is or is not acceptable for a particular circuit breaker, a simple rule of thumb is to check the design of the connecting hardware at the breaker. If the hardware is specifically shaped to accommodate two separate wires, as with Square D type QO breakers, then the connection is acceptable and should not be cited as double-tapping in a home inspection report. But if the connecting hardware is a simple screw or lug, it is reasonable to assume that the manufacturer of the breaker intended there to be one wire only at the connection. In that case, double-tapping would be the proper disclosure for a home inspector. The only way to connect two circuits to a single breaker in that instance would be by indirect means. The accepted method would be to connect a short wire (known as a “pigtail”) to the breaker and to join the other end of that wire to the two circuit wires with an appropriate connector, such as a wire nut.

To avoid future disagreements over double-tapping issues, it may be necessary to change the wording of your disclosures. For example, if you find what appears to be a faulty double-tap, your report might say, “Double-tapping was observed in the main breaker panel. These breakers may not be rated for double-tapping. Therefore, further evaluation by a licensed electrician is advised.”

This wording allows you to report a possible defect and to recommend attention by a qualified expert — in this case an electrician. You haven’t said the condition is definitely defective but simply that it is questionable and warrants further evaluation by a specialist. If the electrician determines that the connection is acceptable, he assumes future liability for the correctness of that verdict. And your disclosure would be no worse that that of the family doctor who recommends a heart specialist to evaluate an cardiac symptom. If the specialist concludes that the heart is perfectly healthy, the patient will be relieved and unlikely to fault the general practitioner for erring on the side of caution.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I’m trying to sell my home and my agent presented an offer that sounds fishy. The proposal is to have the house appraised for more than I am asking. The buyer would get financing for the inflated price and I would refund the excess money to him after the close of escrow. What’s your take on this? Anne

Dear Anne: Don’t even consider doing this. It’s an old trick that allows a buyer to purchase a property with no down payment. The practice is totally fraudulent and could get you into serious legal trouble with the mortgage lender and the IRS. Any agent who would present an offer of this kind should be reported to the state agency that licenses real estate professionals.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Before we bought our home, we called five home inspectors to compare quotes for an inspection. What surprised us was the wide range in prices. By shopping around, we saved nearly $200 on the price of our inspection. Why do some inspectors charge so much more for the same service? Jan

Dear Jan: Home inspectors don’t charge more for the same service. In nearly every case, they charge more because their inspection services are more thorough and more comprehensive, because they are significantly more experienced at inspecting homes, and because they disclose more of the conditions that would be of concern to you as a buyer. Inspectors who charge less, particularly those who charge $200 less, are generally new to the inspection business and lack the skills to perform the kind of inspection you, as a buyer, would want. They charge less because, as brand new inspectors, they are trying to jump-start their fledgling businesses. The question you should now be asking isn’t “why do some inspectors charge so much more?”, but rather, “what defects did my bargain home inspector fail to disclose?”

When shopping for a home inspector, the last question you should ask is “how much is the fee?” The primary and essential questions are:

1. How long have you been a home inspector?
2. How many homes have you inspected?3) What are your professional credentials?
   

The purchase price of your home was probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. An investment of this size warrants a degree of scrutiny that far outweighs the value of a $200 savings in the cost of an inspection. The defects that await discovery by a qualified home inspector might involve repair costs of several hundred or several thousand dollars. These defects could involve significant safety issues related to electrical, heating, and fireplace systems, the integrity of the roof, the framing construction in the attic, the foundations, ground drainage, etc.

The ability of a home inspector to discover the many possible defects in a home increases with years of professional experience, and home inspectors who acquire high levels of such experience set their prices accordingly and fairly. Homebuyers who price-shop for their home inspection are hereby warned that they will get what they pay for.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Our house was built in 1972, with aluminum wiring for all the outlet and light circuits. Recently, we learned that aluminum wire is a bad thing and puts our home at risk for fire. Since we have had no problems for the past 35 years, we’re wondering if what we’ve heard is true? If so, is there a fix besides rewiring the entire house? Also, if we sell the house without rewiring it, will we be liable for future problems? Kris

Dear Kris: Aluminum wiring was installed in many homes from the late 1960s through the early 1970s, particularly in mobile homes. When used for 110 volt circuits, it is commonly recognized as a potential fire hazard. Fortunately, the solution does not involve rewiring your home. The problem exists at the connections only, requiring localized upgrades, rather than replacement of the wires

Aluminum wire ends can become loose at connecting hardware, and this can cause overheating of the connections, resulting in house fires. This does not mean that the aluminum connections in your home are definitely faulty, but there is the potential for overheating, even if you’ve never noticed a problem. In some cases, where no evidence of any problem was apparent, burnt wires were found inside the walls during a remodel, after the drywall had been removed.

The common solution is to install special connectors, commonly known as “pigtails,” at outlets, lights, and switches. This should be done by a licensed electrician who is familiar with aluminum wire issues.

As for future liability when you sell the home, just be sure to disclose to buyers that the house is wired with aluminum and include documentation to show that the wire ends were retrofitted.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Our home has had the same wallpaper for 24 years, and some of the edges are beginning to peel. Unfortunately, the person who installed it glued the paper to the drywall without applying wallpaper sizing first. This means that stripping the paper will probably damage the surface of the drywall. Therefore, I have two choices: I can glue down the peeling edges and apply paint or wallpaper over the old paper, or I can try to strip the old paper but will probably end up with many damaged surfaces. I’m an experienced do-it-yourselfer but have just turned 77 and am not looking for major projects. Given the choices, what do you recommend? Hal

Dear Hal: When you say the wallpaper was installed without sizing, I assume you also mean that the drywall was not primed or painted. If paint or primer was used, stripping can probably be done without damaging the drywall surfaces. In that case, the stripping project could proceed normally, notwithstanding the usual tedium of wallpaper removal.

On the other hand, for someone who is “not looking for major projects,” there is a simpler approach. The old wallpaper lasted for 24 years, and you are now 77 years old. If you don’t mind having a second layer of wallpaper for the next 24 years, that will take you to age 101. At that point, you probably won’t care about wallpaper, sizing, or stripper. Option #2, therefore, could be summarized as “Why Worry?” Glue the peeled edges, slap on another layer of wallpaper, and relax with a good book.