House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: When we bought our home, we hired a home inspector who was recommended by our real estate agent. The inspection report contained what appeared to be two minor disclosures: “minor lean to the home” and “some minor seepage in the basement during heavy rain.” The only recommendation was “monitor for further movement.” After we moved in, the rains came, and none of this turned out to be “minor.” For nearly three months, we had a foot of water in the basement. The contractor we hired found that the house is leaning nearly 9 inches. Leveling the home and fixing the drainage will cost many thousands of dollars. We do not believe our home inspector did a competent job. Instead, he portrayed major defects as no big deal. Who is liable for the repairs, and what can we do about it?  Tim

Dear Tim: There are two problems with the disclosures in the home inspection report: 1) Conditions such as leaning of a building and water intrusion in a basement should not be presumed to be minor; and 2) Such conditions warrant further evaluation by qualified experts. Faulty drainage should have been reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Leaning of the building called for analysis by a structural engineer. What you needed was someone who is licensed in both fields of engineering.

Instead of recommending that you “monitor for further movement,” the inspection report should have said, “Further evaluation by a qualified, licensed engineer is recommended prior to close of transaction.” Your home inspector’s job was to point out significant defects and to make appropriate recommendations. Building settlement is obviously a major concern, as is water intrusion into the building. Determining the extent of these issues was not something to be done by monitoring movement after you purchased the property. You were in the process of making an important purchase decision. That was why you hired a home inspector. He should have considered this when making his recommendation.

Your home inspector may be liable for faulty disclosure, depending on the inspection contract that you signed and pertinent laws in your state. An attorney should evaluate those issues.

The sellers of the property may also share some liability. If they lived in the home for more than a year, they were probably aware of the drainage problem in the basement and should have disclosed it. And here’s a question for your real estate agent: Was this the most qualified inspector the agent knew? Some agents recommend the best home inspectors; some do not.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I am the broker of a large real estate company. In my area, most home inspectors use computerized reports, with photos of the defects they disclose. Very few still use the old fashioned, hand-written forms, and I seldom give my business to those backward dinosaurs. One of those technophobes is the most experienced home inspector in my area. He usually finds defects that are missed by other home inspectors. In fact, he even finds problems that are missed by the termite inspectors. But I can’t stand his lousy 1990 carbon copy reports. They’re hard to read and harder to email. So I never refer this Neanderthal to my clients. But when other agents refer him, his reports make me so mad I could pull out my hair. What is it that keeps these closed-minded idiots from getting with today’s high tech program?  Yuli

Dear Yuli: Sit down and cool off. Businesses today are in technological transition, including home inspection and real estate companies. Most home inspectors have made the change to electronic reporting, but a few remain stuck in their old ways. Some are part-time inspectors, without a major commitment to the business. Others are comfortable in their routines and have little interest in state-of-the-art innovations. And there are some professionals who recognize the need to modernize but have been too busy inspecting homes to invest in change.

Old style reports are not as user-friendly as the new electronic versions that include photographs of defects. On the other hand, not all computer reports are as easy to read as they ought to be.  In some reports, the defect disclosures are obscured by paragraphs of “boiler plate” verbiage. In others, the disclosures are so vague that the defects cannot be readily understood. But all of these issues are eclipsed by the essential purpose of home inspection: to disclose property defects.

You admit that the “Neanderthal”, “dinosaur”, “technophobe”, “idiot” who does not get your business is the most thorough home inspector available; that he finds problems that other home inspectors miss. This means that the “high tech” reports that your clients receive from other home inspectors do not provide complete disclosure of all significant defects. It means that you prefer those incomplete reports to the out-dated, carbon copy reports that contain more actual disclosures. The question, therefore, has shifted. Instead of old report forms vs. new electronic reports, the issue has become partial disclosure vs. full disclosure of property defects. In other words, form vs. substance.

If this is the choice, which do you suppose is more important to your home-buying clients? Would they prefer full disclosure or fancy disclosure? And what about your liability as a broker? How would you defend yourself if sued for incomplete disclosure? Would you tell the jury that you avoid thorough home inspectors who don’t print fancy reports? That would hardly invite a favorable verdict.

So here is the bottom line: Home inspectors who take their business seriously should find a comprehensive electronic report system to maintain viability in the marketplace. Meanwhile, Realtors should recommend the most thorough home inspectors available, regardless of the style of reports they generate. In either business, it’s all about representing the best interests of clients, while limiting liability.

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: We purchased our home 1 1/2 years ago, and our home inspector missed a number of problems. These include rotten eave boards, a bad roof, a rusted water heater, garage door openers not equipped with safety eyes, rotted window frames, an unvented kitchen stovetop, a broken vent on the furnace, and the list goes on. We trusted him because he was recommended by our Realtor. Do we have any recourse? Sandra

Dear Sandra: The first step in the process of recourse is to notify the home inspector and the agent that these problems were not disclosed. You should invite them to your home for a review of these issues. And be sure to do this before making any repairs because corrected problems are not as negotiable as existing ones. Be aware also that not all of the issues you listed are within the scope of a home inspection and some may not involve actual defects. Here are some examples:

• Rotting wood at the eaves and windows may or may not be included in the scope of the inspection. You should check the inspection contract in that regard. Termite inspectors are the ones who typically inspect for rotted wood.
• Older garage door openers were not required to have safety eyes.
• In most states, venting is not required at a kitchen range.

On the other hand, the rusted water heater, the broken furnace vent, and the faulty roof should have been disclosed by the inspector if the problems were visible at the time of the inspection.

It is an unfortunate reality of the real estate business that some agents cannot be trusted to recommend the best home inspectors. This does not apply to all agents, but it does apply to some. Therefore, your agent should be asked, “Was this the most thorough and experienced home inspector you know?” In most cases, agents know which inspectors are the best. If you can get the name of a “top gun” home inspector in your area, a second inspection would be advisable. This may alert you to additional problems that may have been missed by the agent’s inspector.

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: When we purchased our home, the home inspection report listed the furnace as “serviceable.” After moving in, we had problems with heating, so we called a heating contractor. He said we have a Premier furnace that was recalled because of major safety problems. So now we have to buy a new furnace. Our Realtor says the home inspector is responsible. But the home inspector says he can’t be expected to know about every product that’s been recalled. Is the home inspector liable for having approved the furnace, or are we stuck with the expense ourselves? Jessica

Dear Jessica: Home inspectors, in most cases, are not liable for product recall notices. But the Premier furnace matter is not a typical recall. It is probably the most widely publicized, most well known recall to occur in many years. It has been a frequent subject of discussion among home inspectors, and even among Realtors, since 1999, the topic of seminars, trade journals, even newspaper articles.

It would be difficult for a home inspector to have missed the issue, unless he were new to the inspection business. For a qualified home inspector, failure to recognize a Premier furnace as a potential safety hazard constitutes professional negligence.

It should be noted, however, that not all Premier furnaces are subject to the recall. This only applies to models equipped with nox rods in the burner chambers. These fixtures can be identified by the “x” at the end of the model number. On the other hand, Premier models that are not subject to the recall often have problems with the venting of combustion exhaust. A home inspector who carefully examines furnaces while they are in operation would notice this.

Your home inspector should reconsider the matter of his liability and let this be a professional learning experience.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home 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 Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We bought our home one year ago. When we had our home inspection, we asked the inspector about a small water stain on the ceiling. He pointed some kind of sensor at it and said it was not an active leak. Recently, the ceiling stain became wet again, and that portion of the drywall fell down. It turned out that the water came from the old air conditioner in the attic. But according to the inspection report, the A/C was “new and in good working order.” Do we have any recourse against the inspector? Deanna

Dear Deanna: Your home inspector apparently committed three errors. The first was to evaluate a ceiling stain on the basis of current wetness or dryness. The second was not conducting a follow-up investigation of attic and roof conditions directly above the stain. The third was to misidentify the age and condition of the air conditioner.

When asked about the stain, reliance on a moisture detection device was inconclusive because stains caused by seasonal roof leaks or by intermittent mechanical leakage are not always wet. The proper approach would have been to inspect the attic and roof areas directly above the stain to investigate possible causes. Had this been done, the inspector might have discovered related water stains near the A/C system and could have recommended repairs by a licensed HVAC contractor.

The fact that your inspector described the A/C unit as “new” indicates three things: first, that he did, in fact, take a look at the system; second, that his ability to evaluate the system was so inadequate that he could not distinguish between a new or old fixture; and third, that he failed to notice evidence of condensate leakage.

On this basis, the inspector appears to have been negligent and should accept some liability for ceiling and A/C repairs. You should contact him and ask that he reinspect and discuss these issues.