House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: :  I am selling my home, and everything was going smoothly until the buyer’s home inspector raised a needless issue about the deck. The inspection report says the deck and the roof above it must be attached to the house. I’ve gotten estimates from five different licensed deck contractors, and each of them said that the deck is well constructed and that attachment to the house is not required. My transaction with the buyer is now deadlocked over this issue. Do I have any recourse against the home inspector? Shouldn’t he have known that the deck is properly built?  Cathy

Dear Cathy: There are many home inspectors with questionable qualifications, some who are marginally experienced, some who overlook significant defects, and some who cite defects that are nonexistent. It may be that one of those people has inspected your home. If your transaction is deadlocked over this issue, you should insist that the home inspector cite the specific building requirement — chapter and verse — that was violated when your deck was built. If he cannot, then he should amend his report to show that the deck is properly constructed.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: As editor of a paper that publishes your column, I’ve received complaints from real estate advertisers who find the tone of your articles to be anti-Realtor. After reviewing some recent columns, I tend to agree with them. When recurrent articles deal with unscrupulous real estate agents, a negative theme and negative perceptions can form. The tone of such articles creates an “us vs. them” mentality that isn’t good for anyone involved. I realize there are bad agents out there, just as there are bad inspectors, and you have written about both. But I think you should touch on other topics for variety. Readers would be better served if, for example, you would address the item-by-item details of a home inspection.  Mark

Dear Mark: Let me begin by praising the numerous first class real estate agents with whom I am personally acquainted. There are many outstanding Realtors who bring credit and good repute to the real estate profession — hard working agents who truly represent the best interests of their clients; who conduct their work with the highest ethical standards; who truly deserve every dollar of the commissions they earn.

The intent of this column has never been “us-versus-them”; nor has it been to paint real estate professionals with a broad brush, either positive or negative. As you say, there are good and bad agents out there, just as there are good and bad home inspectors; just as there are good and bad members of every profession.

The content of this column is largely dictated by questions and comments from readers, and many of these involve grievances against Realtors and home inspectors. If human nature tended toward praise rather than complaint, I would probably hear from more people who were satisfied with the top-notch agents and inspectors who have served them. Instead, I receive consumer complaints involving very real problems. The purpose of this column is to address those issues from an honest and unbiased perspective; to educate buyers, sellers, agents, and others about the pitfalls of real estate disclosure and best ways to deal with property defects.

In the years from 1996 through 2005, the real estate market thrived throughout most of the United States, and this booming activity caused many people to enter the real estate and home inspection professions. As a result, there were many inexperienced home inspectors, with little ability to provide homebuyers with adequate disclosure. Unfortunately, these novice inspectors obtained referrals from misguided real estate agents, and unsuspecting homebuyers made bad purchase decisions on the basis of faulty inspection reports.

Some of the agents who referred those inspectors were novices themselves, unaware of the vast quality differences among home inspectors. At the same time, there were experienced agents who should have known better, but who failed to exercise ethical discretion when referring home inspectors to their clients.

So what is the solution?

Leaders in the real estate profession, including brokers and Realtor associations, need to provide agents with better clarity regarding disclosure. This emphasis should be two-fold. First is the matter of ethics: Buyers should be fully informed of property defects because total disclosure is the only honest way to do business. It is the way that everyone wants to be treated. Second is the matter of legal liability: Faulty disclosure exposes agents and sellers to potential lawsuits. If the altruism of ethical disclosure is not sufficient cause, then the need to avoid litigation should be. For either reason or for both reasons, disclosure of property defects is good for everyone.

Agents should become familiar with the best home inspectors in their areas of business and should only recommend those inspectors. Many good agents have made this a practice throughout their careers. When other agents follow that good example, consumer complaints will cease to fill my inbox, and articles that offend agents will no longer be necessary.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We purchased a condo last year and had it professionally inspected. The inspector could not see the gas line for the patio barbecue because it was under the concrete slab. But the seller assured us that it was installed to code. He volunteered this information while taking us on a tour of the home. Recently, we removed the patio to replace it with brick pavers. It turned out the gas line was on top of the soil, directly under the concrete. The paving company won’t install the new patio until we have the gas pipe buried at the required depth of 18 inches. Are the sellers responsible for this plumbing work, or must we swallow the cost? Denise

Dear Denise: Sellers often make statements about code compliance in utter ignorance of the building code. In fact, home inspectors laugh among themselves about sellers who say, “We built the addition without a permit, but everything was done to code.” Unless sellers are architects or building contractors, they have no way of knowing whether code compliance has been met. If you combine the building code, the plumbing code, the mechanical code, and the electrical code, you have a set of books about five inches thick and written in esoteric language that is essentially foreign techno-speak to the average person.

The “craftsman” who installed the gas line below your patio, without burying it 18 inches below grade, was obviously not a professional. This means that the seller installed a gas line (or had some other unqualified person install it) and did so without a required building permit. Since the seller represented the gas line as being “installed to code,” it would be reasonable to request that he make that line comply with his own disclosure. If he does not agree, a small claims judge would be likely to rule in your favor.

Be sure to take photos of the gas line before having it replaced.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: The home inspector I hired never mentioned that the floor tiles and air duct insulation contain asbestos. Shouldn’t he have pointed this out?  Robert

Dear Robert: Asbestos is generally regarded as “outside the scope” of a home inspection and is typically not mentioned by most home inspectors. For homebuyers, this leaves a gap in the disclosure process. For home inspectors, the issue is one of legal liability. If any material is disclosed as a potential source of asbestos, the inspector may be held liable for other possible asbestos materials that were not mentioned in the inspection report. For this reason, the home inspection industry has excluded asbestos as a consideration during home inspections.

If asbestos disclosure was included in home inspections, complications could ensue because there are so many common building materials that might contain asbestos. Examples include sheet vinyl flooring, asphalt and vinyl floor tiles, adhesive mastics, acoustic ceiling texture, old heat duct insulation, asphalt composition roofing materials, plaster, stucco, drywall, joint compound, and more. In most cases, these do not contain asbestos, although with some materials, such as acoustic ceilings, asbestos content is common. Those materials that contain asbestos are usually not hazardous if they are undamaged and allowed to remain as-is.

It could be argued, however, that home inspectors should point out potential asbestos in some cases. For example, many homebuyers plan to remodel and renovate the homes they buy. Interior renovations often involve, for example, the removal of acoustic ceiling texture or of sheet vinyl flooring. Unless alerted by their home inspector, the new homeowners could remove the material without consideration of the potential for asbestos exposure. Ceiling texture that is scraped off or vinyl flooring that is torn off could release asbestos fibers into the air of the home if proper removal procedures were not used.

Another example would be old insulation on warm air ducts installed prior to 1973. Duct insulation that appears as gray cardboard, sometimes with a foil veneer, it is certain to contain asbestos. If the material is undamaged, it can be left as-is. But it is common for such material to be torn in places or to be detached from the air ducts. Home inspectors in those instances would do well to recommend further evaluation and repair by a licensed asbestos contractor.

The pros and cons of asbestos disclosure have been debated among home inspectors for many years. On one hand, there is the need to provide vital information to home-buying customers. That argument weighs in favor of measured and limited asbestos disclosure. On the other hand is the fear of liability and lawsuits if asbestos disclosure is not comprehensive and thorough. That consideration favors a total avoidance of asbestos disclosures of any kind. The controversy is an outgrowth of the freewheeling practice of litigation, an ongoing threat to businesses and professions throughout the nation. The proliferation of cases, whether frivolous or justified, has taken its toll on home inspectors everywhere. In the end, each home inspector must decide whether to confront or avoid the practice of asbestos disclosure.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I disagree with published comments you’ve made about the state agencies that license and regulate building contractors. In one article, you told someone “…don’t be too surprised at agency officials’ seeming lack of interest.” As one of the agents of whom you speak, I can assure you that the people in my office take every consumer complaint very seriously. While we receive thousands of complaints every year, every one is handled with concern, and every effort is made to ensure that construction is performed in a safe, competent, and professional manner. I encourage you, therefore, not to imply that we regulators are disinterested. Richard

Dear Richard: Many of the consumer complaints filed against building contractors are indeed handled with fairness and concern by licensing agencies such as yours. But there are also cases where fairness and justice are denied to damaged consumers, where unqualified or unethical contractors slip through the cracks of the system. The following examples illustrate this unfortunate reality:

Several years ago, I was hired to inspect a newly-built patio enclosure. The contractor who did the work had failed to use tempered safety glass. The framing members for the roof were undersized for the span, causing the structure to sag. The framing was not secured with adequate hardware, and the visible quality of workmanship was appalling. I advised the homeowners to file a complaint with the state contractors licensing agency. They did so. After reviewing the matter, the agency approved the contractor’s work and dismissed the complaint.

In another incident, two retired sisters hired a general contractor to construct a building on their property. The general hired a subcontractor to grade the building site, at a cost of $6000. The sisters, however, were approached by another grading contractor who offered to prepare the site for $5,500. But there was a catch: He proposed a time and material contract, rather than securing the quoted price in writing. When the grading was completed, his bill exceeded $17,000. The ladies protested, but he threatened to take legal action if they did not pay. Under duress, they met his demand but later regretted that decision and filed a complaint with the contractors regulatory agency.

During the investigation, the grading contractor claimed that the location of the construction site had been changed after the work was begun and that this accounted for the additional cost for his work. According to the general contractor and the building plans, that claim was entirely untrue. Yet the state contractors agency ruled against the two property owners. They overpaid $12,000 for the work and were denied justice by the agency empowered to prevent this kind of abuse.

Both of these cases deserved better consideration. In view of their outcomes, “don’t be too surprised at agency officials’ seeming lack of interest.”