House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Before we bought our home, we hired a home inspector, but he didn’t report any of the major problems in the house. Now we have to repair the plumbing, the electrical wiring, and the roof. When he did the inspection, he said everything was OK, but he was just lying, and we think he may have gotten a big tip from the seller or the agent. He was supposed to be working for us. Why would a home inspector do business this way?  Beatriz

Dear Beatriz: To assume that a home inspector took a bribe is a big jump. When home inspectors fail to report defects, the problem is usually negligence or professional incompetence, not willful collusion with sellers or agents. Unfortunately, there are more than a few home inspectors who are just plain inexperienced or not adequately skilled as inspectors. Because of this, many homebuyers do not receive adequate disclosure. To make matters worse, there are many agents who recommend such inspectors to their clients.

The first thing you should do is have your home reinspected, but this time you should find an inspector with many years of experience and a reputation for thoroughness. To gather some leads, call a few real estate offices and ask for the most “nit-picky” home inspector in town. Tell them you want a home inspector who is known as a “deal breaker.” That’s the misnomer that some agents apply to the best inspectors.

A second report from a truly qualified home inspector will reveal the actual condition of your home and will provide a more complete list of the issues that were missed by the first inspector. Then you can notify the first inspector of your concerns and ask if he has errors and omissions insurance. Hopefully, he will be willing to address your concerns.

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: 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: 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 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: 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: The last time I bought a home, the inspector missed an unbelievable number of problems. He was strongly recommended by my agent, so I expected a much more thorough inspection. Now that I’m buying another home, I don’t want to make the same mistake. Rather than depending on an agent’s referral, how can I know whether a home inspector is truly qualified? Monica

Dear Monica: Complaints about unsatisfactory home inspections are common subjects in my daily email. Unfortunately, there are more than a few unqualified and inexperienced home inspectors in the marketplace, and the problem is compounded by the many real estate agents who routinely recommend these inspectors to their buyers. If you are unfamiliar with the home inspectors in your area, tell your agent you want the most thorough home inspector available. Say you want the one the agents call “the deal killer.” And make sure that the home inspector has been in business for many years, has inspected thousands of homes, and has a reputation for thoroughness. In truth, home inspectors of this caliber are rarely deal killers. Unfortunately, the degree of thoroughness they apply to their work may engender such fears among some agents.

Once you find a qualified inspector, be sure to attend the inspection. A good home inspector will point out defects and will fully explain the report at the end of the inspection.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: My house has street parking only, with no room for a driveway on either side. Most of my neighbors park on their front lawns, which is illegal and which downgrades the look of the neighborhood. In a nicer part of town, I saw a home with elegant front yard parking, paved with turf blocks and enclosed by an iron gate. I want to copy this parking arrangement, but the building department refuses to issue a permit, even though this would improve the appearance of the area. They say off-street parking is not allowed, even though everyone else is already doing it. I’ve decided to go ahead with the project without a permit. Could this cause a problem when I sell the property? Darin

Dear Darin: Lack of adequate parking in a residential neighborhood is a problem for property owners, tenants, and visitors. Failure of your local building department to recognize a practical solution is not a credit to their good judgment or their obligation to serve the needs of the community. They would do well to judge a permit request on its specific merits, rather than blindly impose the strict letter of the law, to the benefit of no one.

If you proceed with your parking project without a permit, you may or may not encounter problems with the building department. In most cases, work of this kind, where actual building construction is not involved, goes unnoticed, and many homeowners make such improvement without even considering a permit in the first place. However, the bureaucrats do have authority, and it is within their power to make you undo the improvement if they are so inclined. What’s more, they’ve already demonstrated an unwillingness to apply common sense to a reasonable proposal. In situations of this kind, the possibility of bureaucratic interference should not be dismissed, but the odds against it are probably in your favor.

As for potential problems when you sell the property, your only obligation is to disclose that the parking area was built without a permit. Most buyers willing accept such conditions, but some may not.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We’re planning to put our home on the market but are not in agreement about hiring a home inspector. I believe we should know every possible issue prior to listing the property, while my husband believes that doing so increases the number of defects we will have to disclose. Do you see pre-listing home inspections as an advantage or a disadvantage for sellers? Sheila

Dear Sheila: The subject of pre-sale home inspections for sellers has been addressed from time to time in this column because so few sellers are aware of the advantages of hiring their own home inspector. Basically, there are four compelling reasons for sellers to have their home inspected prior to listing it for sale:

1. When you present an inspection report to prospective buyers at the outset of the deal, it eliminates the need to renegotiate after the buyers hire their own home inspector.†In most transactions, the entire deal is contingent on the buyers’ acceptance of their home inspector’s report. A thorough report by your own inspector reduces the likelihood of new findings by the buyers’ inspector.
2. Providing an inspection report to buyers promotes an atmosphere of trust. It indicates to buyers that you, the sellers, have nothing to hide and are willing to disclose everything.
3. If an undisclosed defect is discovered after you sell the property, you are less likely to be suspected of having concealed the problem intentionally, especially if you hired a home inspector with a reputation for thoroughness.
4. A presale inspection enables you to transact an as-is sale, while still meeting your obligation to provide disclosure. You simply state that you are not intending to make repairs but are providing, instead, a complete list of conditions that warrant repair. Presale home inspections provide strong advantages for sellers, yet few sellers exercise the option or are even aware of it as a consideration. In today’s buyers’ market, sellers need to take this proactive approach to disclosure.