House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We recently purchased a home. During the negotiations, we asked the sellers to replace the electrical panel due to safety concerns disclosed by our home inspector. The sellers agreed to have this work done. On the day that the escrow closed, the escrow officer told us that the new panel had been installed without a permit. After moving in, we applied for our own permit at the building department. But the new panel did not pass inspection. We emailed copies of the failed inspection notice to the sellers, their agent, and our agent, but no one has responded. What should we do? Niki

Dear Niki: According to the National Electrical Code and the International Residential Code, it is illegal to perform electrical installations without a permit. It was the responsibility of the sellers to have this work done according to safety code requirements and with the approval of the local building department. Likewise, it was the responsibility of the agents to inform you of the status of the work before the close of escrow, not after.

If the sellers and agents are unwilling to address your concerns, a wake-up letter from a real estate attorney may be needed. Certified mail on legal stationary tends to be more stimulating than common email. Of similar effect would an ethics complaint at the local Board of Realtors office.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I recently bought a 1944 home that needed many repairs. Before buying it, I hired a home inspector, but he missed many of the problems, including windows that won’t open. I’m planning to replace all the windows in the house and have three questions: 1) Shouldn’t my home inspector have reported the faulty windows? 2) Is a building permit required for window replacement? 3) Can they really deny my right to occupy the house until the window replacement is approved? According to the permit application form from the building department, a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the permit is signed off. Delbert

Dear Delbert: Here are three answers to your three questions:

1. Home inspectors typically test a random sample of windows to ensure that they function properly. When windows are not tested, it is usually because furniture or window coverings restrict access. Ensuring that windows are functional is particularly important in bedrooms and bathrooms. Bedroom windows must be openable and must meet minimum dimension requirements to enable emergency escape by occupants. Bathroom windows must be openable in order to provide ventilation, unless an operable exhaust fan in installed.
2. The building code does not specifically require a permit for window replacements, but it does require permits if you “alter” a building. Some building departments interpret this code to include window replacements, while others do not. However, when window replacements include changes in the wall framing, a permit is more likely to be required.
3. The requirement for a Certificate of Occupancy typically applies to buildings that are under construction, not homes where windows are being replaced.

Before commencing work on your home, check with the local building department for clarification of their requirements.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: You often stress the importance of defect disclosure for sellers. But here in the commonwealth of Virginia, sellers do not have to disclose. They can simply disclaim or disclose defects in their homes, as they choose. Most sellers sign disclaimers stating that they are selling their house “as is” without having to divulge anything they know to be defective. It’s “buyer beware” in this state, and only the foolish buyers forego home inspections! Diana

Dear Diana: Thanks for calling attention to this legal circumstance in your state. Something should be done in Virginia to rectify an inexcusably out-of-date position with regard to real estate disclosure. Setting aside the opposing legal arguments, it is a matter of common decency and honest ethical behavior to inform a buyer of defects before selling a costly commodity. This is particularly true with a home because of the financial hardship that can result from undisclosed defects. Those who support limited disclosure could use some basic instruction in the differences between right and wrong. Until then, the absence of seller disclosure increases the need for qualified home inspectors in Virginia.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I’ve made an offer on an unpermitted home that was red-tagged in 2001 by the county building department. The property is located in the mountains, surrounded by other unpermitted homes, and the real estate agent says the building department is not likely to require demolition, as long as property taxes continue to be paid. But this seems risky. The price for this property is tempting, but I don’t want to get stuck with a vacant lot. When a home has been red-tagged, can the building department eventually order its removal? Mark

Dear Mark: In most cases, municipal building departments don’t require demolition of unpermitted buildings. This, however, does not mean they can’t or never will do so. Building departments are empowered to enforce the letter of the law. If future policy changes should incline them toward rigid enforcement, they could order the removal of substandard structures that have been red-tagged. Conditions that could prompt such a decision might be major construction defects in the building, zoning violations, noncompliance with water and septic requirements, or the capricious imposition of authority by an over-zealous bureaucrat.

Demolition, however, would be a worst-case scenario. A more likely enforcement position would be to prohibit occupancy of the dwelling until it is permitted, inspected, and approved.

A prudent approach, before you sign a purchase contract, would be to visit the county building department and to discuss the situation and possible options with the chief building official. What you need is clarification of their policy toward properties of this kind. Ask the building official about an as-built permit. Find out how much the permit process might cost and what the chances are of obtaining approval for the building. You’ll also need a list of defective conditions likely to be cited by the building department. So be sure to hire an experienced home inspector for an evaluation of the building.

Buying a red-tagged home has it’s risks, but the greatest of these is to proceed without a full knowledge of the situation.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: My son lives in our back yard guest house with a ventless gas heater. Twice this past week, he has gotten sick at night. Both times, he became congested and got chills even when it wasn’t that cold. Could this be caused by the heater? Darrell

Hello Darrell: If your son’s sickness coincides with nighttime use of a ventless gas heater, you should have your doctor examine him immediately for symptoms of carbon monoxide exposure. You should also have the gas company test the furnace for carbon monoxide emission. And regardless of their findings, you should replace the heater with one that is vented to the exterior. And be sure to install a carbon monoxide detector in the room where your son sleeps.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: In a past article, you said, “It is not legal for a clothes dryer exhaust vent to terminate within the confines of a building….” and you cited Section 504.3.1 of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Does this mean that the dryer vent diverters sold in hardware stores and used to provide extra heat in a home are illegal too? Marshall

Hello Marshall: Several companies are currently marketing clothes dryer vent diverters. These fixtures consist of a vent duct connection and a small water reservoir. As the dryer exhaust passes through the diverter, the moist air from the clothes dryer vents into the room, while the lint is captured by the water in the reservoir. Manufacturers such as Dundas Jafine praise these devices as sources of indoor heat in winter. Advertising claims include “No need to drill holes to vent your dryer….” and “Ideal for apartments, condominiums and mobile homes.” What they fail to mention is that the building and mechanical codes specifically require that clothes dryers be vented to the exterior.

There are three primary reasons for exterior venting of a dryer. With a gas dryer, the primary issue is safety because the exhaust contains combustion byproducts that could be dangerous to breathe if vented into a home. The manufacturers of dryer vent diverters are aware of this and only recommend use with electric clothes dryers. But the likelihood that some homeowners will install diverters with gas dryers is undeniable.

Another problem with dryer vent diverters is moisture condensation in homes. All of the wetness in the clothes that were just washed is being expelled from the dryer vent. In dry climates, this added air moisture might be an advantage. In areas with moderate to high humidity, the moisture from a dryer could promote condensation and the growth of mold.

The third problem is the potential for lint build-up in the home; a potential fire hazard. This can occur if the water level in the reservoir is forgotten and allowed to evaporate. Lint can then bypass the diverter and vent into the home.

The building code prohibits the installation of unapproved fixtures in mechanical systems, but it does not prevent manufacturing companies from producing and selling such items. Other examples of products that enable homeowners to violate the building code are corrugated connectors for the drain pipes under sinks, submersible refill devices for toilet tanks, and electrical outlet adaptors that enable you to insert three-prong plugs into two-prong wall receptacles.

The free market allows these devices to be made, but the authors of the building code have good reasons not to sanction their use.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: In a recent article, you stated that it was an agent’s responsibility to recommend a home inspector. I argue that such a recommendation is a clear conflict of interest. The agent’s interest is in closing the sale and getting a commission check. The home inspector’s interest is in future referrals from the agent. No matter how you cut it, that kind of relationship compromises a home inspector’s integrity. I’ve had two bad experiences with home inspectors who were recommended by real estate agents, and that has taught me to shop for my own inspector. That’s the kind of advice you should be giving your readers. Al

Dear Al: The article you refer to involved an agent who advised her buyers not to hire a home inspector. The subject of that column was to condemn that kind of unethical practice. The point was not that an agent should “recommend a home inspector,” but that agents should advise every buyer to have a home inspection.

A repeated subject of this column has been the complex issue of inspector referrals by agents and brokers. Some articles have discussed agents who advise against having home inspections, while others have shined the spotlight on those who refer marginally qualified inspectors to their clients. The referral relationship between agents and home inspectors is not what compromises an inspector’s integrity. Referrals merely test the integrity that an inspector may or may not inherently possess. Inspectors who skew the findings of reports to promote future referrals are condemned by their own lack of common decency, not by the conflict of interest posed by real estate agents. Home inspectors with well-founded values serve the interests of homebuyers, not the pressures imposed by agents.

These same ethical standards for disclosure can be applied to agents and brokers. Those who are truly honest and ethical promote full disclosure and recommend the most qualified inspectors. Those who lack these values betray the interests of their clients by recommending unqualified inspectors or by convincing their clients to forego an inspection; all for the sake of a commission check.

In the real estate marketplace where I do business, there are sufficient numbers of ethical agents to fill the schedule of an honest and meticulous home inspector (most of the time). Whether this is true everywhere is difficult to say. But the bottom line is this: Any home inspector who abbreviates the thoroughness or accuracy of an inspection report for the sake of agent referrals has essentially stolen the money of the homebuyers who paid for the inspection. Likewise, any agent who advises against having an inspection, or who recommends marginally qualified home inspectors, or who labels the best inspectors as “deal killers,” is no better than a bar room grifter in professional clothing.

The practice of uncompromised defect disclosure is the ethical heart and soul of real estate related professions. It measures equally the moral worth of agents, brokers, and home inspectors. Anyone who devalues that practice should do some serious soul searching or should simply find another line of work.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We had a large custom home built by a contractor about three years ago. Since then, we’ve had three on-going problems. First, the bullnose wall corners throughout the house continue to separate from the drywall, even around the windows. The drywall subcontractor has been here repeatedly. But he only fixes the places where separation has become visible, and the places he fixes look obviously patched. Second, the stucco finish on the outside of the house keeps chipping and crumbling off. We pointed this out to the contractor when the house was new. He said this was typical for new stucco. But the stucco finish has continued to crack, crumble, and separate ever since. And third, there is a terrible smell coming from the septic tank since we moved in. When we first complained, the subcontractor repaired a broken underground pipe, but this has not eliminated the awful smell. The builder said it would go away but it has continued for three years. With each of these issues, the builder just makes excuses. He says that his liability expired after one year, and he never admits that these are serious problems. I am totally frustrated and hope that you can give me some direction. Please help. Ginny

Dear Ginny: The defects you describe are totally unacceptable and are not normal for a properly constructed home; especially a custom home. A contractor who excuses defects of this kind is unworthy of trust or respect.

If the bullnose wall corners are separating from the drywall, then they were not adequately nailed when the home was built. Proper repair means renailing every bullnose corner in the house, followed by patching and retexturing by a qualified craftsman. If done by a competent drywall finisher, the repairs should not be visibly discernible.

If the stucco had been properly applied, delamination of the finish coat would not be occurring. The cracking and crumbling you describe indicate substandard workmanship, and the builder is responsible for that defect. What’s more, his liability did not end after one year because the defects were reported to him while the one year warranty was still in effect.

The sewer gas smell from your septic system indicates a significant health safety violation that needs to be addressed fully and immediately. It is not a matter to be dismissed with lame excuses. Some aspect of the septic system is defective and needs to be corrected.

Here are my recommendations:

1. Hire an experienced home inspector to thoroughly evaluate the property. In addition to the three issues you have listed, a qualified inspector will disclose construction defects you have not yet discovered. A detailed home inspection report will document all apparent construction defects in a way that will provide leverage in dealing with the builder.
2. Hire individual specialty contractors to evaluate the problems you have listed: a drywall contractor to assess the bullnose problem; a stucco contractor to evaluate the stucco problem; and a septic contractor to inspect and evaluate the problem with sewer gases. All of these contractors should provide written assessments of these issues and bids for proposed repairs.
3. Get some legal advice from an attorney who specializes in construction defect law.

In the final analysis, you don’t want the builder to repair the construction defects because you can no longer invest confidence in the integrity of his work. Instead, you want him to pay the contractors you hire to make proper repairs.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We purchased a home about a year ago and had it inspected. But we think our home inspector missed a problem with the forced air furnace. When the weather turned cold, we began using the heating system, and within a week we noticed black soot around the house. We thought it might be coming from the fireplace, so we had the chimney swept and we cleaned up the house. But the black soot soon came back. We cleaned the house again, but the soot came back again. Do you think our home inspector should pay to have the furnace fixed? Scott

Dear Scott: Whether the home inspector is liable for the faulty furnace depends on whether there was visible evidence of a furnace problem on the day of the inspection. For example, if there was soot in the burner chambers, in the flue pipe, on the flue cap, or at the air registers, these would have been red flag symptoms for a competent home inspector. If the flame pattern or flame color at the burners was abnormal, if there was rusted hardware in the furnace, if any signs of deterioration or damage were apparent, those conditions should also have alerted your inspector. If such conditions were apparent, further evaluation by a licensed HVAC contractor should have been recommended in the inspection report.

Of greater importance than the question of liability, however, is the matter of safety for everyone in your home. If the furnace is emitting soot, it may also be venting carbon monoxide, and that would extremely dangerous. Therefore, the furnace should not be used until it has been thoroughly evaluated by a licensed HVAC contractor. At the same time, you should notify the home inspector of these concerns and ask that he reinspect the furnace. If you can coordinate that reinspection with the HVAC contractor’s evaluation, that would help to clarify questions of liability.

Dear Barry: Last year, we bought a home from a nationally known developer. They offered us several optional upgrades, including a covered patio with plumbing and electrical connections for an outdoor kitchen; all for $1,800. Now that we’re ready to install the grill, the building department says that a barbecue pit under an overhanging roof is not legal. We would never have purchased this option if we had know the cooking fixture could not be installed. Do we have recourse? Bill

Dear Bill: A professional builder should know better than to sell an option that is not permissible by code or by local building ordinances. But you’d better check the fine print in the contract, because it may give them an “out.” On the other hand, a small claims judge might take a different view of the matter and override what could be an unfair contractual provision. You might also file a complaint with the state attorney general’s office to see where you stand according to state law.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I find it hard to understand why home inspectors refuse to walk on concrete tile roofs. I know handymen, cable guys, chimney sweeps, and others who walk on tile roofs all the time and never break a single tile. But home inspectors routinely wimp-out on tile roof inspections, choosing to inspect from the ground, sometimes using binoculars. In my opinion, inspectors who do this are shortchanging their customers. To put it bluntly, there is no way to perform an adequate inspection of roofing tiles from the ground. To do a competent inspection, it is necessary to walk on the roof. What is your opinion on this? Brad

Dear Brad: You raise some valid issues about tile roof inspections, but clarification is needed on a few points. It is true that the best roof inspections include a walk on the roof. It is also true that roof tiles don’t break easily underfoot. Nevertheless, nearly all home inspectors refuse to walk on tile roofs, and here is the reason why:

The majority of tile roofs have one or more broken tiles. In most cases, these are not visible from the ground and are unknown to homeowners. When a home inspector walks on a tile roof that is believed to have no broken tiles and then reports that some broken tiles were observed, the inspector can then be blamed for breaking those tiles in the course of the inspection. This has actually happened to a number of inspectors and is the reason that nearly all home inspectors use other inspection methods for tile roofing.

Fortunately, it is possible, in most cases, to conduct a thorough roof inspection without walking on the tiles. On single story buildings, a competent inspector can place a ladder against the eaves at various places around the building, providing full view of all or most roof surfaces. A comprehensive evaluation of roofing tiles can then be performed from atop the ladder. With second story roofs, decks and balconies enable ladder placement against the eaves. For second story roofs that can only be inspected from the ground, a good pair of binoculars provides an adequate close-up view of the tiles in most instances.

In the minority of cases where the tiles are not viewable by these any of these methods, the inspector should report that the roof inspection was limited and that further evaluation by a roofing contractor is advised.

Dear Barry: The home we just purchased has a swimming pool that leaks badly, but we were not told about this leak before we bought the property. The repairs are estimated to be several thousand dollars. Do we have any recourse against the sellers for not telling us about this problem? Rod

Dear Rod: Whether you have legal recourse against the sellers depends upon the disclosure laws in your state. In most states, full disclosure of known defects is a requirement.

If the sellers lived on the property, they must have known the pool was leaking because the water level would have gone down continually. The sellers should be formally notified about this breach of disclosure. If they are unwilling to address the issue, you should consult an attorney for advice.