House Detective

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: 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 Building 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 Building 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 Building 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 Building 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.
   

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: Your comment about the building inspector who was “consumed with the zeal of high office” was so “spot on” and could be used in many situations. Many of us have dealt with variations of this person. Thanks for the smile it gave me. Mary Ann

Dear Mary Ann: A common problem with bureaucratic systems is that they tend to promote employees to their various levels of inefficiency. Once they reach the level at which they no longer do good work, they cease to be promoted. Instead, they remain in those positions until the day of retirement because most governmental systems preclude the likelihood of demotion or of being fired. Additionally, government employment can be a place of refuge for those whose talents are insufficient for the competitive demands of the marketplace. Bureaucracies also attract managers whose faulty decision making processes render them unacceptable to private employers whose main concern is customer satisfaction and a lucrative bottom line.

It should be emphasized, however, that not all bureaucrats are of this low caliber. There are many highly qualified people who also find themselves in government employment. But the percentage of sour apples in the bureaucratic barrel seems higher than one is likely to find in private business.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: As a buyer of homes in several states, I find the practice of real estate disclosure to be an unethical mess. In some states, disclosure is mandatory for sellers and agents, while in others, the laws are full of loopholes. Sellers rarely know what defects to disclose, and the agents wouldn’t recognize a defect if it was labeled. But the real slap in the face is from agents who recommend incompetent home inspectors. I never know the true condition of a home until I move in. If I then complain about the lack of disclosure, the sellers claim that they didn’t know, the agents pass the legal buck to the home inspector, and the inspector recites a list of disclaimers in the inspection contract. Disclosure, it seems, is a sad joke, but everyone is safe behind the letter of the law. This may be a rhetorical question, but what ever happened to disclosing defects simply because it’s the right thing to do? Harold

Dear Harold: Defect disclosure is hampered in two significant ways, and you have raised both issues. The first is the inability of many sellers, agents, or home inspectors to provide adequate disclosure. The second is a failure of some to recognize the ethical importance of disclosure.

Sellers in most states must provide a written statement of known defects. These disclosure statements rarely contain pertinent information because the majority of residential defects involve issues that homeowners seldom see and probably wouldn’t recognize, such as improper wiring in a breaker panel or a chimney defect in the attic. Sellers who are serious about disclosure should hire a qualified home inspector for a presale inspection.

Realtors in most states are required to disclose what they know. Degrees of compliance vary from one individual to the next, depending on what they learned in kindergarten. But the real litmus test of disclosure ethics involves the choice of home inspectors that agents refer to their trusting clients. Agents become familiar with the relative abilities of local inspectors. They know which inspectors are more or less thorough in their findings, and these impressions are widely discussed within real estate offices. For the agents who are truly ethical, only the most thorough inspectors will do for their clients. For the ethically disabled, those who had problems learning sandbox etiquette, the best inspectors are known as “deal killers.”

Home inspectors vary widely in their abilities to discover and disclose defects. The reason for this disparity is that home inspection is a learn-as-you-go business. It is not possible to be qualified at defect discovery without having been a full-time inspector for several years. This means that new inspectors must learn their trade at the expense of the first customers. After several hundred substandard inspections, the new inspector begins to catch on. After a few thousand, true competence begins to manifest. To paraphrase an old adage, “There are new home inspectors and true home inspectors, but there are no new, true home inspectors.”

Buyers can obtain adequate disclosure if they understand these realities. When you buy, don’t expect much in the way of disclosure from sellers or agents. They probably don’t have much to disclose and may or may not be committed to the ethical demands of the disclosure process. Instead, try to find a home inspector who is truly qualified: someone who has many years of experience, who has inspected thousands of properties, and who has a reputation for detailed, uncompromised thoroughness. A top-gun home inspector will provide the disclosure you’re seeking, and for once, you’ll know what you’re buying, before you buy it.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: Home inspectors perform an inadequate service, a fact that is overlooked in your column. I hired an inspector not long ago and found his work to be a complete waste of money. All he did was look around and report the obvious. I could have done as much myself instead of paying a so-called “expert.” Homebuyers deserve better than this. For example, why don’t home inspectors look under carpets for asbestos, mold, or signs of vermin? Your interest in promoting home inspectors prevents you from understanding this. Get a clue. William

Dear William: Home inspection can be a waste of money or a valuable benefit, depending on the quality of the home inspector you hire. If your home inspector did little more than “look around,” you have a legitimate grievance, but not a case against an entire profession.

This column frequently identifies negligent home inspectors, but it also recommends inspectors who are qualified and experienced, who provide detailed evaluations of homes, and who disclose defects that could not be found in the course of a simple “look around.” For example, an inspector I know found the following defects in just the past week:

1. Over-spanned framing in an attic, causing the roof to sag.
2. Rust damage in the burner chamber of a gas furnace.
3. A disconnected safety shutoff switch in a forced air furnace.
4. Circuit breakers that were oversized for the wires in the circuit.
5. Faulty grounding in an electrical subpanel.
6. Buried gas piping that lacked rust protection.
7. A bathtub whirlpool pump that was not grounded.
8. Lack of tempered safety glass at a staircase landing.
9. A fireplace chimney that was too short at the roof.
10. Improper placement of piers under a home.
    

These are typical examples of defects routinely reported by qualified home inspectors; defects that would not be discovered by homebuyers conducting their own walkthrough inspection or by inspectors with inadequate experience.

As for your suggestion that home inspectors check beneath carpets for asbestos, mold, or vermin:

1. How much carpet should home inspectors lift? Should they raise a few corners or totally roll back the carpets in each room? If they don’t do it all, how can we be sure they will not miss a serious problem?
2. How do we explain to sellers that we must move their furniture to enable inspection beneath the carpets? If sellers agree to this intrusive process, how many additional hours will be needed to complete the inspection, and how much should inspectors charge for this additional time?
3. If furniture or personal items are damaged while being moved (i.e. a broken vase or a scratched table), who should pay for repair or replacement?
4. Once the carpets have been laid back down, who should pay the carpet layer who refastens the edges to the tack strips?
   

Practicality imposes reasonable limits on home inspectors. An inspector cannot view everything without creating unacceptable problems. In spite of these restraints, a truly qualified home inspector can find considerable numbers of defects, providing valuable disclosure to home buyers. If you should ever hire another inspector, be sure to find someone who is truly qualified.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I am 68 years old, with relatively good health, and I am looking for another career. What about home inspection? I’ve just signed up for a 7-week course, beginning soon. Am I at that age where home inspection work is too demanding, or do you think I’ll be ok? Tom

Dear Tom: It depends on what shape you are in. How do you feel about crawling under houses, with barely enough room to move, or through an attic, snaking your way through trusses, ankle deep in fiberglass insulation, while brushing dusty webs from your face? If those working conditions are acceptable, you’ve overcome the second worst aspect of home inspecting.

The real deterrent is the legal liability. Homebuyers will base major purchase decisions on your findings. If you miss any defects in the course of your inspections (and all home inspectors do miss things; especially when they are new to the profession), you could be held liable. Aside from that, home inspection is a challenging and interesting way to make a living, even in the active years of early seniority.