Dear Barry: I’m having trouble with the seller of the home I am buying. When I first looked at the house, he said the fireplace was in good working order. But my home inspector says there are loose bricks and mortar in the firebox. Now the seller says he never used the fireplace but was told when he bought the house that it worked. When I asked him to fix the loose masonry, he refused because the sale is not contingent on the findings of the home inspector. And he still insists that the fireplace is in working order, even though the home inspector disagrees. Does the seller have to pay to fix the fireplace? And if not, can I get out of the contract even though there wasn’t a contingency on passing inspection?  Kim

Dear Kim: If the purchase contract is not contingent on the findings of the home inspection, then the seller is not required to make repairs, and the condition of the fireplace does not provide an option to cancel the purchase. The seller, however, should stop insisting that the fireplace is in working condition. If he has never used it, and if the bricks and mortar are loose, he obviously has no basis for that claim.

Your choice, then, is to decide if the cost of chimney repair overrides the value of the home. If the property is acceptable to you in all other respects, does a fireplace repair of several hundred or even a few thousand dollars offset its desirability. If so, you may have to forfeit your deposit. Otherwise, you should proceed with the purchase and eventually pay to have the fireplace repaired. But before you decide, hire a fireplace specialist to provide a detailed evaluation, as well as a written bid for necessary repairs.

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.

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.

Dear Barry: We are concerned about the safety of our ventless gas fireplace. We use it a lot, and a black film has recently appeared on the glass panel, as well as on our windows. What should we do? Barbara

Dear Barbara: The first think to do is stop using the fireplace and report the problem to a qualified fireplace specialist for evaluation and repair.

When a gas-burning fixture produces a black residue, that is a symptom of incomplete combustion and faulty exhaust venting. It means that combustion byproducts are venting into your home, and this is potentially dangerous, depending on whether these byproducts include carbon monoxide.

After your fireplace is professionally serviced, read the owners manual before resuming use. The manufacturer’s instructions may advise not using the firxture for periods of more than two hours. The manual may also recommend that a nearby window be kept open while the fireplace is in use to dilute exhaust with fresh air.

Ventless gas fireplaces are vigorously defended by their manufacturers as being incapable of abnormal combustion. In past articles, I’ve expressed the view that no manmade product is, or ever can be, 100 percent foolproof. Your situation appears to support that opinion.

Dear Barry: When we bought our house, the home inspector said the bricks in the fireplace needed to be repointed. He said this meant filling in the gaps in the brick mortar. But a lot more turned out to be wrong with the fireplace, and we think he should have disclosed these issues. A few months ago we called a brick mason to repoint the firebricks. He said the entire chimney is unstable, the portion above the roof is crumbling, and water leakage occurs when it rains. The quote to rebuild the chimney is $12,000, and we would have negotiated this with the seller if we had known. Do we have any recourse against the home inspector? Jennifer

Dear Jennifer: From your description of the chimney, it would seem that the defects should have been apparent to a competent home inspector. If he inspected the roof, which would be standard procedure unless the roof was inaccessible, he should have seen the chimney up close. If he couldn’t get onto the roof, he should have viewed the chimney from the ground; preferably with binoculars. If he did a thorough inspection, he should also have inspected the attic, and this should have enabled a close-up inspection of a portion of the chimney and might have revealed the water stains caused by rain leakage. The interior of the chimney could also have been inspected from inside the firebox, with the aid of an inspection mirror and flashlight.

When firebricks need to be repointed, there are usually additional defects that warrant evaluation by a brick mason or a certified chimney sweep. A competent inspector, when reporting crumbling mortar in a firebox, will usually recommend further evaluation of the entire system by a qualified fireplace specialist, not merely repointing of the bricks.

It appears, therefore, that your home inspector could be liable for failure to disclose visible defects that were within the scope of a home inspection. You should notify him of these conditions and request a reinspection of the fireplace. If he has errors and omissions insurance, a claim may need to be filed.

Dear Barry: We are purchasing a bank-owned home, built in 1953. It is in horrible condition and needs to be demolished. When we talked to the county building department, they said that the asbestos had to be removed prior to the demolition. We have heard that the seller is responsible for removing asbestos. Is this true? If not, how much will it cost to have it removed? Michelle

Dear Michelle: Sellers are not required to remove asbestos, and when the sellers are banks, they are not even required to provide disclosure of property conditions.

Asbestos removal in a residence is only required when remodeling or demolition occurs, and the cost can be high if much asbestos is involved. However, you need to determine where the asbestos materials are, if there are actually any at all. Therefore, an asbestos survey by a certified asbestos inspector should be your next step. If the inspector finds asbestos, you should get bids from licensed asbestos abatement contractors to determine the likely costs of removal.