House Detective

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: When we bought our home, our home inspector said the water heater was OK. But when we moved in, the hot water was orange at all of the faucets. So we called a service company. They said the inside of the tank was completely rusted, and we paid them $1000.00 to replace the fixture. When we called our home inspector about this, he said that he had operated all of the faucets, and the water had been clear at that time. He also stated that he is not responsible if something is now wrong. Is he really not liable? Tammi

Dear Tammi: Many of the questions I receive from readers are pointed complaints against home inspectors. Some of these involve professional negligence by inspectors, while others reflect basic misunderstandings about the scope of a home inspection or the nature of various home defects. To fairly address your water heater situation, there are some issues that need to be clarified regarding rusted plumbing and what may or may not have been apparent on the day of the inspection.

The rust-colored water at your faucets can come from a rusted water heater of from from old rusted water pipes. In either case, discolored water may not always be apparent. For example, if the house was occupied on the day of the home inspection, then the occupants were using water on a daily basis. With regular use, the water would be clear because there would be no build-up of loose rust particles. But several days or weeks of vacancy would allow loosened rust debris to settle in the water heater, the pipes, or both. If that were the case, when you moved in and turned on the various faucets, the settled rust would have flowed with the water, and the rusty color would then have been apparent. This may or may not have been what occurred in your home, but it is one possibility to be considered in addressing your concerns.

Another variable is the seeming certainty of the “service company” (or was that a plumber?) regarding the interior condition of the water heater tank. The inside of a water heater is not exposed and cannot be inspected. A further concern as to the credibility of the service company is the cost of replacing the water heater. A typical water heater replacement costs approximately $600. The fixture itself should have cost about $250. So what was the hourly rate for labor?

As for the home inspector, it is surprising that he found no problems with the water heater, since most water heaters are not installed in full compliance with plumbing code requirements. Also, if the water heater was badly rusted, then it was old. A thorough inspection of a water heater includes an age estimate of the fixture. If the unit was old, this should have been noted in the inspection report as an indication that the water heater may have had limited remaining life.

The home inspector’s statement that he is “not responsible if something is now wrong,” needs some clarification. As often stated in this column, home inspectors are liable for conditions that are visible and accessible at the time of the inspection. If something was visible, accessible, and “wrong,” then the inspector would be liable, unless the defect involved a component that was not within the scope of a home inspection.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I’m writing to shred an article on your website that deals with home inspector liability. In it you say, “One way that home inspectors have addressed liability is to limit the scope of an inspection to defects that are visible and readily accessible.” This seems to be a blanket justification for the failure of home inspectors to report defects. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, inspection is defined as: “View or examine closely and critically especially in order to assess quality for shortcomings….” Given that definition, home inspectors don’t inspect: they express personal opinions. One solution would be for buyers and sellers to conduct their own inspections for obvious defects, instead of allowing home inspectors to pick their pockets. This would help to reduce the escalating costs of buying a home, typically caused by attorneys and others who ride the lucrative real estate gravy train. Edward

Dear Edward: The home inspection process is well defined by the Oxford Dictionary. But shouldn’t that definition be limited to conditions that are apparent to the five senses? Or should home inspectors be liable for conditions that are concealed within construction, beneath the ground, or behind personal property? To be consistent with your blanket condemnation of the home inspection profession, the Oxford definition could be modified to read, “View or examine closely and critically those conditions that are visible and accessible, as well as those that are not.”

The suggestion that buyers and sellers should conduct their own inspections invites an answer that is longer than the space of this column. To summarize, we should consider the following questions: How many buyers and sellers would be able to evaluate the wiring in an electric service panel? Would they recognize conditions involving over-fusing, improper grounding, or the use of a breaker panel as a raceway? How many would be willing to crawl through the dank web-infested recesses beneath a house or the dusty darkness of an attic? And if they did so, how many would recognize a significant defect in the foundations or framing? How many could identify faulty plumbing and electrical installations; or evidence of seasonal flooding after the soil below the building had become dry; or noncomplying gas piping, gas unions, or gas valves; or a flue pipe that is too close to combustible materials; or the lack of required ventilation; or inadequate clearance at a chimney? How many could evaluate the functional and safety aspects of a water heater or a furnace? How many could determine the quality, condition, and proper installation of a roof, regardless of the type of roof being inspected?

The answers here are obvious. Someone with professional knowledge and experience is needed to provide adequate and reliable information about the conditions in, on, under, and around a home. This, of course, does not mean that everyone who assumes the title of Home Inspector is sufficiently qualified. But among those home inspectors who are qualified, the services they provide are valuable, substantial, and not to be compared with the pilfery of a pickpocket.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: My agent told me that, for legal reasons, she was not able to recommend a home inspector. She said I would have to find one on my own. Is this a normal practice for agents? Shirley

Dear Shirley: Some agents are afraid to recommend home inspectors for fear of being liable if the inspector they recommend does not do a thorough job of disclosing defects. But not all agents take this approach. Some avoid liability by giving their clients a list of home inspectors from which to choose. The best agents, however, recommend only the most thorough home inspectors. In this way, they serve the interests of their clients, while limiting their liability. On the other hand, there are agents who increase their liability by recommending marginally qualified home inspectors — ones who are not very thorough.

If you need to find your own home inspector, call several real estate offices in your area and ask who are the most thorough and experienced home inspectors available.