House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We’re about to buy a six-year-old home that originally had a mold problem. Fortunately, the builder removed all of the affected materials from the building. If we buy this home, are we required to disclose the initial mold issue to our home inspector, or should we wait to see if he notices any evidence of mold?  Jack

Dear Lars: What possible advantage could there be in withholding information that would assist your home inspector in evaluating the property you are buying? The inspector is your hired consultant; there for your exclusive benefit; to provide you with essential decision-making data. Any information or other assistance you can provide toward full evaluation of the property is to your advantage. If the property has a history of mold, let your inspector know about it. That way, pertinent moisture conditions and related defects can be carefully considered and evaluated during the inspection.

Testing your inspector, rather than lending your trust and assistance can have costly consequences. Here’s a true story that illustrates the point: The buyers of a home had been told the property was located within a flood plane, but they never mentioned this to their home inspector. The inspector observed no evidence of potential flooding and therefore made no disclosure of it in his report. The buyers therefore dismissed the issue of possible flooding and proceeded with the purchase. After the close of escrow, the first heavy rains caused ground water to flood the interior of their home. They blamed the home inspector for this “surprise” and filed a lawsuit for nondisclosure, even though they had withheld prior knowledge of flood potential on the day of the inspection.

If you alert your home inspector to the history of mold infection, then potential moisture sources such as plumbing leaks, roof leaks, and ground drainage problems can be given particular attention during the inspection. By withholding that disclosure, there is greater likelihood that a significant issue could be missed.

Be aware also that home inspectors do not make determinations regarding the presence of mold. Since the property has a mold history, you would be prudent to hire a mold expert to affirm that there is no residual mold infection in the building.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We bought a home from a family trust. The previous owners had died, and their adult children were selling the property. As trustees of the estate, they were not required to disclose any defects. But a major ground drainage problem was revealed after we moved in, and we’ve learned from the neighbors that the trustees and their Realtor were fully aware of it. The main symptom has been water in the warm air ducts below the slab floor. This was discovered by the first termite inspector who checked the property; so the Realtor hired another termite inspector. The second inspector failed to disclose the water problem, and the agent only gave us the second report for disclosure. Unfortunately, our home inspector also missed the problem because he never looked into the floor registers. Now he tells us that removing the register grills is outside the scope of a home inspection. We’re trying to sort out who is responsible for this mess and would like your opinion in the matter.  Lars

Dear Lars: “This mess” involves two separate disclosure problems: Willful concealment by the sellers and their agent and professional negligence on the part of the home inspector.

The trustee/sellers may be legally exempt from disclosure requirements because they were not the occupants of the property. But there is more to be considered than the letter of the law. The intent of the law is to require disclosure of known defects. If the sellers knew about the ground water problem and its effect on the air ducts, disclosure should have been made on the basis of ethics and common decency, regardless of legal requirements.

The real estate agent is totally without excuse. The central point of ethics within the real estate profession is the requirement for full disclosure of all known defects. Exemptions for the sellers do not relieve their agent from this responsibility. If the agent was aware of a particular problem and failed to disclose it, that agent can be liable for damages and for legal sanctions by the state licensing authority. In this case, the agent is particularly culpable because the first termite report, the one that revealed the water problem in the ducts, was deliberately withheld from disclosure. Furthermore, that report can now be used as evidence against that agent.

Finally, there is the matter of your home inspector. He maintains that he is not required to remove grills from heat registers. Strictly speaking, this assertion is correct. Dismantling of building components is not within the scope of a home inspection. However, a truly competent home inspector makes a reasonable effort to inspect areas of potential concern. Air ducts beneath a slab should always be viewed as a potential moisture problem because they may be exposed to wet soil. Heat registers can be inspected quite easily by opening the louvers and shining a flashlight through them. Removing the grills is not necessary in most cases. However, floor grills are usually not fastened and often can be lifted as easily as opening a cabinet door.

All parties who might have provided disclosure failed to perform. The sellers and home inspector may have talking points to the contrary, but no one, particularly the agent, can walk away clean from this situation.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I’ve made a purchase offer on a four-unit commercial property. Do investors typically hire home inspectors for this kind of property?  Don

Dear Don:  The purchasers of commercial properties often overlook the importance of a professional inspection — a surprising omission for a major investment of this kind. Yet the same buyers would never purchase a home without a detailed physical evaluation. For some reason, there is a perceived difference between residential and commercial properties where defect disclosure is involved.

Commercial buildings are prone to all the same defects likely to be found in a residence: roof problems, issues with plumbing, electrical, and heating systems, faulty site drainage, foundation settlement, safety glass violations, trip hazards, and more.

The bottom line is clear: Commercial real estate is expensive. It pays to know what you’re buying before you buy it. Buying commercial property without a professional inspection a risky way to do business. A qualified inspector can provide valuable disclosure to prudent buyers of commercial real estate.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: In past articles you’ve mentioned “as-built permits” for additions and alterations that were done without building permits. I have a property that was totally renovated — new electrical, plumbing, heating, and roof — all done without permits. I’m going to list the property for sale and want to know if an as-built permit is a good idea before I sell. Could you explain how this works?  Lou

Dear Lou: When you sell a home with non-permitted alterations, you have two choices: You can sell it “as is”, but with full disclosure of non-permitted work, or you can get an as-built permit and, hopefully, make everything legal. But before you apply for an as-built permit, you should be aware of the pros and cons.

Most building departments offer as-built permits as a way to bring maverick additions and alterations into legal conformity. On its face, the concept is quite simple: You submit a set of plans to the building official with an application for a building permit. With a normal building permit, you obtain permission to perform work. With an as-built permit, you seek approval for work that was already completed, to be sure that it complies with the building code. If the proposed plans conform with municipal standards, they are accepted, and a building inspection is scheduled. If the scope of work is not acceptable, the permit is denied, and the building official may order restoration of the building to its original state.

Examples of unacceptable changes would be additions that are too close to property lines, a garage conversion where enclosed parking is required, or a second living unit where single-family occupancy is the limit.

If the plans are approved, the next hurtle is the building inspection. In the best of cases, the building inspector performs a visual, walk-through inspection of the project area. If no building violations are found, the work is officially approved, and the completed work is given the same status as construction that was permitted in advance. In most cases, some code violations are cited, and a correction notice is given to the property owner. When faulty conditions are corrected, the property is reinspected, and final approval is given. But “cakewalk” approval of this kind is not always the case.

If the building inspector finds significant defects that warrant further evaluation, or if the inspector is overly committed to hardcore scrutiny, or if the inspector just happens to be having a bad-hair-day, you could incur demands that would make your head and pocketbook spin. For example, the inspector might order partial or total removal of drywall and other finish materials so that wiring, plumbing, and framing components can be inspected. Excavation of foundations or of buried utility lines might be ordered so that code compliance can be verified. If concealed deficiencies are found, the inspector could demand numerous upgrades and improvements or demolition of all completed work.

To prepare for this process, you should hire a qualified home inspector to perform a preliminary inspection. This will alert you to defects likely to be cited by the municipal inspector. With that information, you can make an educated choice between an as-built permit or disclosure of defects and of non-permitted work.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: As editor of a paper that publishes your column, I’ve received complaints from real estate advertisers who find the tone of your articles to be anti-Realtor. After reviewing some recent columns, I tend to agree with them. When recurrent articles deal with unscrupulous real estate agents, a negative theme and negative perceptions can form. The tone of such articles creates an “us vs. them” mentality that isn’t good for anyone involved. I realize there are bad agents out there, just as there are bad inspectors, and you have written about both. But I think you should touch on other topics for variety. Readers would be better served if, for example, you would address the item-by-item details of a home inspection.  Mark

Dear Mark: Let me begin by praising the numerous first class real estate agents with whom I am personally acquainted. There are many outstanding Realtors who bring credit and good repute to the real estate profession — hard working agents who truly represent the best interests of their clients; who conduct their work with the highest ethical standards; who truly deserve every dollar of the commissions they earn.

The intent of this column has never been “us-versus-them”; nor has it been to paint real estate professionals with a broad brush, either positive or negative. As you say, there are good and bad agents out there, just as there are good and bad home inspectors; just as there are good and bad members of every profession.

The content of this column is largely dictated by questions and comments from readers, and many of these involve grievances against Realtors and home inspectors. If human nature tended toward praise rather than complaint, I would probably hear from more people who were satisfied with the top-notch agents and inspectors who have served them. Instead, I receive consumer complaints involving very real problems. The purpose of this column is to address those issues from an honest and unbiased perspective; to educate buyers, sellers, agents, and others about the pitfalls of real estate disclosure and best ways to deal with property defects.

In the years from 1996 through 2005, the real estate market thrived throughout most of the United States, and this booming activity caused many people to enter the real estate and home inspection professions. As a result, there were many inexperienced home inspectors, with little ability to provide homebuyers with adequate disclosure. Unfortunately, these novice inspectors obtained referrals from misguided real estate agents, and unsuspecting homebuyers made bad purchase decisions on the basis of faulty inspection reports.

Some of the agents who referred those inspectors were novices themselves, unaware of the vast quality differences among home inspectors. At the same time, there were experienced agents who should have known better, but who failed to exercise ethical discretion when referring home inspectors to their clients.

So what is the solution?

Leaders in the real estate profession, including brokers and Realtor associations, need to provide agents with better clarity regarding disclosure. This emphasis should be two-fold. First is the matter of ethics: Buyers should be fully informed of property defects because total disclosure is the only honest way to do business. It is the way that everyone wants to be treated. Second is the matter of legal liability: Faulty disclosure exposes agents and sellers to potential lawsuits. If the altruism of ethical disclosure is not sufficient cause, then the need to avoid litigation should be. For either reason or for both reasons, disclosure of property defects is good for everyone.

Agents should become familiar with the best home inspectors in their areas of business and should only recommend those inspectors. Many good agents have made this a practice throughout their careers. When other agents follow that good example, consumer complaints will cease to fill my inbox, and articles that offend agents will no longer be necessary.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We purchased our home about a year ago. After moving in, we noticed a dark spot on the bathroom wallpaper. When we peeled up an edge, there was mold and lots of it! It turned out there was a slow leak in the wall, caused by the seller who did his own plumbing repairs. A plumber fixed the leak, and the sellers’ real estate agent sent a handyman to get rid of the mold. He removed the base of the cabinet, sprayed some stuff on the wood and drywall, and then closed it back up. But my daughter and I are allergic to mold and have been having symptoms ever since. With the sellers’ agent having knowledge of this mold problem, do we have any recourse?  Shelly

Dear Shelly: Mold cannot be fully remedied by any kind of spray. Professional expertise is necessary to address mold in a responsible and effective manner. No handyman should be doing this kind of work, and a professional agent should know this. The proper solution for mold infection is total removal of all affected materials: drywall, wood, etc. The sellers and their agent need to arrange for a mold survey by a Registered Environmental Assessor. Mold samples should be sent to a lab to determine the types of mold that are present. Air testing should also be done to determine the types and amounts of mold spores that are airborne in your home. Once a mold report has been issued, the contamination should be eliminated by a qualified, professional expert.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We just purchased a 1920’s colonial style home that we are renovating. During the basement work, we removed the carpet and discovered tiles that we fear may contain asbestos. A few were cracked, and most were covered with a rough layer of mastic that secured the carpet. If we cover these tiles with new carpet, would that be a health hazard? If not, is there a way to test the air for asbestos particles?  Catherine

Dear Catherine: Vinyl floor tiles may or may not contain asbestos. The only way to confirm asbestos content is to have a small sample tested by an environmental laboratory. The cost of this test is nominal, usually less than $20. If you send a tile sample, be sure to include some of the adhesive mastic that secured the tiles, as well as some of the mastic that secured the carpet. Adhesive mastics often contain asbestos fibers.

On the optimistic side, asbestos tiles and mastic are not regarded as significant health hazards because they are not friable. This means that they do not crumble easily and, therefore, are unlikely to release asbestos fibers into the air. Covering asbestos floor tiles with carpet does not pose a significant health hazard. However, when you eventually sell the home, be sure to disclose that the tiles under the carpet may contain asbestos.

If you want to test the air for asbestos fibers, check for asbestos inspectors in your phone book. Not all asbestos inspectors perform air tests of this kind, so be sure to ask when you call these inspectors.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Home inspectors are often accused of negligence when excessive weather conditions prevent them from inspecting some areas of a home. For example, a home inspector might not inspect an attic when the outside temperature is over 100 degrees. If problems in the attic are discovered at a later date, is it unfair to hold the inspector liable?  Gloria

Dear Gloria: Weather conditions often prevent home inspectors from completing portions of an inspection, and liability can be a problem in some of these instances if undisclosed defects are discovered at a later date. Rain, for example, can prevent a home inspector from walking on a roof. Snow can prevent an inspector from even seeing a roof. And hot weather, as you suggest, can prevent inspection of an attic. However, in each of these instances, the need for disclosure does not end with a disclaimer in the inspection report.

In the case of an overheated attic, the inspection report should recommend further evaluation of the attic prior to close of escrow. If the attic is too hot in the afternoon, it will probably be much cooler the following morning. A home inspector who is concerned about the interests of customers will make that kind of recommendation. This applies to other situations, as well. Wet weather, cold weather, storage of personal property, inaccessibility, or other issues can prevent the completion of an inspection. Home inspectors should always recommend further evaluation when conditions that prevent a full inspection have been eliminated. This approach serves the disclosure needs of homebuyers and reduces the liability of home inspectors.