House Detective

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: My landlord has offered to sell me the house I’ve been renting. But the central heating system has broken down, and I’ve just learned that the air ducts are covered with asbestos. My landlord knows about this but refuses to lower the price of the home. What do you think I should do? Michele

Dear Michele: Unless the laws in your area require a seller to make such repairs, what you have is a negotiable issue. If the landlord remains firm in his position, you should decide if the property — plus the cost of furnace repair and asbestos removal — is acceptable to you. To help with this decision, get some bids from local contractors who service heating equipment and who handle asbestos removal. Be aware, however, that asbestos duct insulation is not necessarily hazardous or problematic. If the material is intact, it can be encapsulated by overlaying it with fiberglass insulation. The cost of encapsulation is far less than for removing asbestos.

If you decide to purchase the home, be sure to hire a qualified home inspector to conduct a thorough evaluation of the property. In all likelihood, there are other issues that should be addressed and that might be negotiated with the seller. If the heating ducts have asbestos, this is probably a very old home and is likely to have other significant issues.

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: When we bought our home, the sellers said that everything was functional, which included the central heating and air conditioning system. On the day of our home inspection, the summer temperature was over 90 degrees outside, so the inspector tested the air conditioning but not the heat. Yet his inspection report said that the entire HVAC system was functional. Well, it turned out when winter came that the furnace would not work. The heating contractor we called found several problems, including a cracked heat exchanger. So now the furnace has to be replaced. Who is responsible to pay for this? George

Dear George: The sellers could be liable if the furnace was inoperative or had obvious defects while they owned the property. But that may not be provable. The sellers may in fact have been unaware of any furnace problems, even though it was defective at the time. The home inspector, however, is clearly liable for approving the condition of a furnace without testing it and without recommending further evaluation.

Operating and inspecting a furnace is standard procedure for home inspectors. If an inspector does not operate a heating system, because of hot weather or for any other reason, the report should clearly state that the system was not tested. The condition of the furnace should then be regarded as an unresolved issue, and the inspector should recommend further evaluation prior to close of escrow. A home inspector who discloses a system as functional when it has not even been operated is grossly negligent and should be held to account for that professional breach.

You should notify the sellers and the home inspector of this situation and insist that they take some responsibility for replacing your furnace.

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: Back-drafting has been occurring in our fireplace. What can we do to make the fireplace usable? Ray

Dear Ray: When you refer to “back-drafting”, I assume that you mean yous house becomes smoky. This can be caused by a poorly designed firebox or by a chimney that is too short. A qualified fireplace contractor or chimney sweep can often recommend upgrades that will correct this kind of problem. For example, the chimney height can be extended at the roof, or the lintel can be lowered at the firebox. Just be sure to find someone who is qualified to make this kind of evaluation.

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: We received a letter from the company that pumped our septic tank when we bought our home last year. They recommended that a household of two people should pump the septic tank every 1 ½ to 2 years. They also recommended a septic additive that they sell for $30 per gallon. It’s supposed to break up the solids in the tank, and they claim it’s better than the kind you buy at the hardware store. According to my neighbor, the tank should be pumped every five years. What’s the best advice for maintaining our septic system? Larry

Dear Larry: The septic company’s maintenance advice is better for them than for you. It improves their bank balance and does nothing to benefit your septic system.

On average, septic tanks should be pumped every 3 to 5 years, depending on the size of the tank, the number of family members contributing waste to the system, and the kinds of solids that go down the drain. Most solids that enter the system are decomposed by the bacteria in the tank. Eventually, non-organic junk, such as sand and bits of plastic, accumulate on the bottom of the tank, while a layer of floating grease and scum accumulates on top. These solids reduce the efficiency of the system and make pumping necessary.

Larger septic tanks need pumping less frequently than smaller ones because they have a larger capacity for junk and scum. Likewise, the fewer people who use a system, the less often pumping will be needed. For example, a 1,500-gallon system being used by a family of four might need pumping every five years, while a smaller tank would require pumping twice as often. After the kids have grown and flown, a 1,500-gallon used by empty-nest parents might only need pumping every 10 years.

Garbage disposals can also affect the frequency of septic pumping because they increase the volume of solids in the system. And undigested solids, such as those from a garbage disposal, take longer to decompose.

Additives to septic systems are widely recommended, but their benefits are doubtful. Controlled studies have not shown them to improve the performance of septic systems in any significant way. Added enzymes and bacteria cannot break down non-organic sediment. And added bacteria must compete with the bacteria already in the tank. In most cases, the established bacteria simply eat the added ones.

So don’t let contractors sell you on needless septic maintenance. Their advice will simply add wasted money to the solid waste already in your system.

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I own several condos in a large building. Recent roof leakage caused $4,100 in damages to my unit. The homeowners association (HOA) has agreed to repair the roof but will not repair the damage to my unit. Part of the problem is their neglect of normal roof maintenance. They allowed pine needles to accumulate on the roof and in the gutters, and this affected roof drainage. Is there any way to make them repair my unit? Tom

Dear Tom: If the HOA has not maintained the roof in a responsible manner, that weighs against their disclaimer of liability for consequential damages. You should check the documents that govern your condo complex to see how HOA responsibilities are spelled out. If the HOA is required to maintain the roof, that increases their liability for damages to your unit. If they remain firm in their refusal to make interior repairs, you might test the issue in small claims court. For a nominal filing fee and a few hours of inconvenience, you might be able to enforce your position.

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: We purchased our home 1 1/2 years ago, and our home inspector missed a number of problems. These include rotten eave boards, a bad roof, a rusted water heater, garage door openers not equipped with safety eyes, rotted window frames, an unvented kitchen stovetop, a broken vent on the furnace, and the list goes on. We trusted him because he was recommended by our Realtor. Do we have any recourse? Sandra

Dear Sandra: The first step in the process of recourse is to notify the home inspector and the agent that these problems were not disclosed. You should invite them to your home for a review of these issues. And be sure to do this before making any repairs because corrected problems are not as negotiable as existing ones. Be aware also that not all of the issues you listed are within the scope of a home inspection and some may not involve actual defects. Here are some examples:

• Rotting wood at the eaves and windows may or may not be included in the scope of the inspection. You should check the inspection contract in that regard. Termite inspectors are the ones who typically inspect for rotted wood.
• Older garage door openers were not required to have safety eyes.
• In most states, venting is not required at a kitchen range.

On the other hand, the rusted water heater, the broken furnace vent, and the faulty roof should have been disclosed by the inspector if the problems were visible at the time of the inspection.

It is an unfortunate reality of the real estate business that some agents cannot be trusted to recommend the best home inspectors. This does not apply to all agents, but it does apply to some. Therefore, your agent should be asked, “Was this the most thorough and experienced home inspector you know?” In most cases, agents know which inspectors are the best. If you can get the name of a “top gun” home inspector in your area, a second inspection would be advisable. This may alert you to additional problems that may have been missed by the agent’s inspector.

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: As a home inspector for many years, I’ve been caught in the “you-broke-it,–you-pay-to-fix-it” bind. My question is simple: When is a home inspector responsible for things that break? Tile roofs are not designed to be walked on, so a home inspector should pay for tiles that break under foot. But I’ve been asked to repair wood trim because I pushed my finger through some dryrot. I’ve paid for faucets that would not turn off after being operated, for a garage door that disconnected from its track when I tested it, and for a casement window that fell from its frame when opened. Is it right for home inspectors to bear the costs of such repairs? Marshall

Dear Marshall: Your dilemma is the common experience of most home inspectors. Nearly all can relay stories of unfair liability; of fixtures that chose the moment of the inspector’s touch to leak, break, disassemble, or otherwise fail to function.

There was the main water shutoff valve that wouldn’t reopen after the inspector turned it off. The inner parts of that 30-year-old valve were totally corroded, awaiting the moment when some unsuspecting soul would turn it off. That someone was the home inspector; so he had to buy a new valve.

There was the old garage door opener that would not reverse and might have injured or killed someone caught beneath it. When the home inspector tested it, his resistance caused the chain to break. The old opener needed to be replaced anyway because it did not comply with current child safety standards. But because it broke when tested, it became the home inspector’s responsibility.

There was the microwave oven, which, according to the seller, had worked that morning. But when tested by the home inspector, it was suddenly unresponsive to the control buttons. All the inspector had done was press the time controls, but his presence when the fixture died was enough to require his purchase of a new unit.

There was the forced air furnace that worked perfectly during the course of the home inspection but was suddenly inoperative that evening when the homeowner returned from work. All the inspector had done was turn it on, watch it run, and turn it off. But he was the last one to operate the old system prior to its unexpected expiration. So, repair costs were demanded of the inspector.

And of course, there is the touchy subject of tile roof inspections. Obviously, a home inspector should pay for tiles that are broken during the inspection. But what about the inspector who discovers tiles that are already broken and is then accused of having broken those tiles?

These situations are the real-life experiences of home inspectors who perform their professional duties in an honest and diligent manner. There are times when home inspectors are truly liable for damages that occur in the course of an inspection. But there are as many cases where liability is unfairly imposed on home inspectors. In many instances, inspectors pay for these arbitrary claims, simply to main good customer relations. Justice and equity can be desired in these situations, but can only be found on a hit-and-miss basis.

The House Detective, by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: We recently installed two, large, double-pane windows in our living room, but we ran into a problem. The weather last night was very cold, and warm air from the floor register caused the glass to crack along the bottom edge of one window. It seems that we made a mistake installing the windows so close to the register. The windows are just a few inches above the floor. What do you think? Trudy

Dear Trudy: The apparent errors in this window installation are worse than you realize. Temperature differentials may indeed have caused the crack, although the cause might have been a flaw in the glass edge, as sometimes occurs when glass is roughly cut. There is, however, a bigger issue.

Windows that are larger than nine square feet and are within 18 inches of the floor must be made of tempered safety glass. The fact that your window cracked, instead of disintegrating into small shards, indicates that it is not safety glass. If someone were to walk into one of these windows, major injuries could result, and you could be liable for the costs of those injuries. My advice is to have these windows replaced by a professional glazing contractor.

The House Detective, by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: When we bought our home just over a year ago, we hired a home inspector and addressed all the issues he disclosed. The listing Realtor, at the time, gave us a letter stating that the furnace had been cleaned. But last month, we awoke to a house full of smoke because the heater burned out. The heating contractor we called said he had inspected the furnace one year earlier and had told the Realtor that the system had major problems. He recalled her being angry and saying that she’d call another contractor. She never mentioned any of this to us, so now we’re stuck with a worthless furnace and are probably lucky to be alive. What should we do, and who should we contact? Dianne

Dear Dianne: The conduct of the Realtor, as you describe it, is beyond unethical: It amounts to criminal negligence. It involves failure to disclose major furnace problems that could have endangered the lives of your family.

Of further concern is the home inspector’s failure to disclose major furnace problems. He may have been professionally negligent, depending on what conditions were visible at the time of the inspection. But this barely compares with the deliberate concealment by the Realtor.

Here are a few things you can do:

1) You can obtain a letter from your heating contractor, documenting his encounter with the Realtor when he discovered major problems with the furnace.

2) You can have your home reinspected to test the overall thoroughness of the original home inspection. This time, find someone with many years of experience and a reputation for thoroughness.

3) You can have an attorney notify the Realtor that she is liable for replacement of the furnace and could face further liability for deliberately concealing a significant safety hazard.

Agents of that caliber should not be allowed to practice real estate.