House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

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.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: You never do columns that recognize holidays. Even at Christmas time and the 4th of July, your articles are always about property defects, real estate disclosure, and home inspections. Now that Halloween is here, how about a spooky house story; something in keeping with the season. Surely you’ve inspected a few creaky old houses. How about it?  Bram

Dear Bram: Home inspections tend to be business-as-usual events: checking the foundations, roofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc. But there was one inspection that I recall with dread and discomfort; an inspection where property defects ceased to be of concern, where routine was over-shadowed by fear, where disclosures were eclipsed by a frenzied struggle to flee the premises. And it just so happened that this inspection occurred on the eve of Halloween.

The house was an old, neglected, two-story Victorian, with leaning fences, tangled vegetation, and dense vines engulfing the walls, windows, and roof. The property, in escrow as a probate sale, had been the subject of headlines when the owner had been found hanging from the rafters of the foyer. The police investigation had not determined whether death was from suicide or foul play, and the body’s subsequent disappearance from the local mortuary had unsettled the community.

The buyers and agent were unable to attend the inspection, but the agent had left a key under the mat. Pressing open the massive door, I entered slowly and commenced what I had hoped would be a routine inspection. But then, beneath the lofty ceiling of the darkened interior, I beheld the noosed rope, still attached to a high, dusty beam. A foul odor of decay permeated the stagnant air, and I recalled reading that the man had spent many days at the end of that rope before the neighbors had found him. The prospect of working alone in those dim, silent rooms unsettled me, and my foremost thought was to complete the job and get out of that ominous place.

A steep stairway descended to the basement, where I proceeded to inspect the old stone foundations, but the sounds of creaking timbers echoed throughout the building, disrupting my attention. And then there seemed to be a different sound, somewhere upstairs. At first, it blended with the incessant creaking of the structure, but the difference soon became apparent. This was not the sound of timbers. It was the slow but steady motion of footsteps. Someone was in the house. Hoping that it was the real estate agent, I called out, “Hello, is someone upstairs?” No one answered, but the footsteps continued down the hallway and stopped at the dark entrance to the basement staircase. I called again, “Hello, who’s there?” Again, no answer. Then, a shadow appeared on the stairs and moved slowly, silently downward.

The dark, disfigured form gradually took shape, his head laid awkwardly against his left shoulder. Yet my attention was drawn from this to some shadowy, indistinct object that dangled from his left hand. As he reached the basement floor, a putrid foulness filled the room, so that breathing became difficult and repugnant. Gripped with horror and disbelief, I was unable to move. But then, the eyes of that disjointed head found me, the lips formed a sardonic grin, dripping with thick gray saliva, and my mobility was wakened by a wave of terror. Clawing my way up the basement wall, I squeezed into the narrow space between the ground and the floor framing, seeking desperately for any way of escape. But the advancing form appeared atop the foundation wall and steadily pursued me into that dark crawlspace.

Trapped in a corner where the foundation walls joined, I realized with desperate finality that I could flee no further. Somewhere is the nearby darkness, I could hear that half dead form crawling toward me. Clutching at my flashlight, I was startled at the impending nearness of his face: the glare of cold eyes, the glint of gray teeth, the viscous fluid that dripped from grimacing lips — and that mysterious object gripped in his left hand.

Terror pounded in my chest as I faced those final, hopeless, remaining seconds. The feet between us became inches. His right hand gripped my ankle as he drew forward. Then his left hand extended the old gunny sack that he held, and the acrid smell of cold breath filled my face, as he cried, “Trick or treat!!”

The House Detective
by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: This is not a question as much as a comment. You occasionally discuss how home inspectors inspect gas-burning fixtures. In my opinion, home inspectors are not qualified to inspect gas appliances — period. Unless they hold the proper licenses to do actual work on those fixtures, they should not be inspecting water heaters, furnaces, or other gas appliances. You would better serve your readers by advising them to use licensed contractors for inspections of gas-fueled equipment. That way, the person doing the inspection will have the necessary knowledge and the proper license to make educated evaluations and reliable recommendations.  Jay

Dear Jay: If gas-burning fixtures should only be inspected by licensed plumbers and heating contractors, we will have to dismiss nearly all of the municipal building inspectors who inspect furnaces and water heaters on behalf of city, county, and state building departments. Those building inspectors, the ones who give final approval for newly-built homes, are code certified, but very few are licensed plumbing or heating contractors.

Repair skills are not essential when searching for defects. A doctor need not be a surgeon to diagnose a disease. Likewise, a competent home inspector can identify mechanical problems, without the expertise to repair them.

A qualified home inspector who inspects furnaces, for example, should be able to recognize inadequate fire clearances for furnaces and flue pipes, improper gas line connections, irregularities in the color and pattern of a gas flame, rust damage in burner chambers, visible cracks in heater exchangers, inadequate combustion air supply, back-drafting of combustion exhaust, and much more. In some cases, home inspectors have identified defects that were overlooked by the contractors and the gas company technicians who serviced the equipment.

Home inspectors who take their profession seriously participate in ongoing education in all aspects of real estate inspection, including the evaluation of gas fixtures. The annual education conferences offered by national and state home inspection associations typically include seminars whose instructors are licensed heating contractors or experts from major gas companies.

Contractor licensing is appropriate for those who install and repair gas-burning fixtures, but it is not essential for those who inspect these systems for specific defects involving function and safety.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: In one of your columns, a buyer was annoyed that her agent would not recommend a home inspector by name. I’m a Realtor, and our company has a policy against recommending any service providers, and that includes termite inspectors and home inspectors. We simply hand our clients the yellow pages and point out the section where inspectors are listed. Past experience has shown us that this is the safest way to do business. If a home inspector that we recommend makes a mistake, we could be sued for making that referral. We’d like to provide the kind of personal service that includes a list of reliable contractors and inspectors, but our hands are tied by fears of litigation; much to our dismay and disappointment. How do you view this position?  Jennifer

Dear Jennifer: Your fear of litigation is understandable and is shared by many; not just in the real estate profession, but by nearly everyone in business; from grocers to doctors; from plumbers to engineers; from teachers to musicians. Trial attorneys, for whatever reasons, good or bad, have removed from our society the trust that was once communicated by a promise and a handshake. Instead, we have pages of fine-print legalese that no ordinary person can understand. Yet none of these documents eliminates the likelihood of lawsuits: They merely provide talking points for that dreaded day in court. But there are still ways of operating in this defensive business environment, without abandoning the kind of personal service that we prefer to offer in good faith to our customers.

The phone book approach to home inspector referrals may not provide the liability protection that Realtors seek. In fact, it may pose a higher level of exposure to tort liability. The problem with a yellow page selection is that a buyer may randomly hire a home inspector who has very limited experience; someone who is not very thorough or qualified and who may fail to disclose significant property defects. If a buyer chooses a mediocre home inspector from the phone book and the agent fails to give warning — to point out that there are better home inspectors — that agent could be vulnerable to a lawsuit, without having made a referral.

Fortunately, there is a safer middle ground between recommending a home inspector or supplying a phone book. Instead, you can provide a list of the most qualified home inspectors in the area and let your buyers choose an inspector from that list. In fact, you could ask a number of local home inspectors to submit a one-page flier outlining their professional credentials and their levels of experience in the inspection business. A packet of these fliers could then be given to every homebuyer. Buyers could select their own inspector, but their choice would be an educated one, based on information that would facilitate a more thorough inspection and, therefore, less liability. Run that idea up the flagpole at your next staff meeting and see if anyone salutes it.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I recently discovered about 3 to 4 inches of standing water under my house. I pumped out the water and removed the plastic sheets that covered the ground so the soil can dry out. Once the ground is dry, should I spread lime over the surface to help prevent mold? And should I also reinstall the plastic sheets?  Steve

Dear Steve: Mold prevention is not necessary unless you have moisture on cellulose materials. Wet soil will not support mold growth, so there’s no need for lime on the ground.

The purpose of the plastic membrane is to prevent ground moisture from evaporating and causing humidity and condensation in the crawlspace. If faulty ground drainage causes flooding above the plastic, then the plastic serves no useful purpose and does not need to be replaced.

The primary concern in this case is the drainage problem. To solve this, you should have the property evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to determine the water source and the best means of preventing future water intrusion. The engineer might recommend french drains around your home, a sump pump under or around the building, regrading of the ground around the building, or possibly la combination of these. Once this is done, replacement of the plastic membrane may be advisable, but additional foundation vents might also be needed to minimize humidity and condensation.

Finally, you should have the structural framing and subfloor inspected for fungus/dryrot or other moisture-related damage. In subareas with high humidity, rotted wood is common, and repairs can be very costly.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Before we sold our house, I repaired a roof leak above the bedroom, and just to confirm that the repair was good, I climbed into the attic during the next two heavy rains. No leaking occurred. The people who bought the house hired a home inspector. He didn’t find any problems with the condition of the roof, but he disclosed the water stains in the attic and recommended further evaluation of the roof by a licensed roofing contractor. The buyers did not follow that advice and proceeded with the purchase. A few weeks later, it rained again and two roof leaks occurred. When the buyers contacted us, we asked them to get three written estimates for roof repairs. Instead, they sent us one estimate for a completely new roof. We repeated our request for three repair estimates, but they insisted that we should replace the entire roof. What do you think we should do?  Lesley

Dear Lesley: The buyers were advised by their home inspector to have the roof evaluated by a licensed roofing contractor. They chose not to follow that advice. By disregarding the inspector’s expressed recommendation, they failed to exercise due diligence and are therefore in no position to make demands at this time. By waiving the home inspector’s recommendation, they were, in effect, accepting the roof in as-is condition.

A second vital point is that their home inspector did not cite any physical damage or other observable defects on the roofing itself. He merely reported evidence of past leakage in the form of water stains in the attic. If roof replacement is necessary, that fact should have been reported by the home inspector. The lack of such disclosure indicates that the home inspector regarded the roof as needing possible repair, rather than total replacement.

Given the buyers’ acceptance of the roof as reported by their home inspector, and given the inspector’s lack of major defect disclosures, it would appear that the buyers’ demand for a new roof is unreasonable and overreaching. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee that they will not continue to pressure you for a new roof or to use legal pressure to achieve that end.

What you need at this point is a detailed written report of the roof’s condition by a qualified expert, with lots of pictures of the existing roof. It would also help to have the buyers’ home inspector reinspect the roof to see whether he will confirm or alter his original findings. If the buyers are intent upon pursuing the demand for a new roof, they should cooperate with this discovery process.