House Detective

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I recently bought my first home and was extremely proud of myself because I’m just 23 years old. I found an older home that needed some work and hired a home inspector who was recommended by my Realtor. The inspector found a few minor problems, so I bought the house. But 5 months later, the heating system failed. The repairman said the heat exchanger was cracked and was giving off carbon monoxide. If my home inspector had told me this, I could have had the sellers replace the furnace, or I could have bought another house. What can I do now? Julie

Dear Julie: If you haven’ already replaced the damaged furnace, you should contact your home inspector immediately and request a reinspection of the heating system. If the crack or any related defects are visible and accessible, then the home inspector would be liable for failing to disclose those conditions.

In many cases, cracks in a heat exchanger are located within the dark recesses of a furnace and are not visible to a home inspector. Sometimes, however, there are symptoms that can alert a home inspector to potential problems with the heat exchanger, such as irregular flame pattern, abnormal flame color, or soot near warm air registers or inside the flue pipe.

The big question, therefore, is whether faulty furnace conditions were visible at the time of the inspection. If so, then the inspector would bear some liability for negligence. Be aware, however, that the degree of liability could be limited by the wording of the inspection contract, by state laws, and by the inspector’s willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of a professional error.

Dear Barry: We are first-time homebuyers and have made an offer on the condo we are presently renting. We’re trying to decide whether to get a home inspection, and several friends have advised us to save our money. They say we can do away with it because the condo is priced very low and the equity will more than cover the cost of needed repairs. Are we taking a big risk if we buy without having an inspection? Jean

Dear Jean: My email box is littered with laments from homebuyers who bought homes without having them inspected. In many cases, their decisions were based on well-meaning advice from friends and relatives or inexcusable advice from misguided agents.
The reasons given for bypassing an inspection are numerous and always erroneous. For example, your friends say the equity in your condo will enable you to pay for needed repairs. But how will you know what those repairs are if you don’t hire a qualified home inspector? If there are problems with the electrical wiring, the plumbing, or the heating system, symptoms may not be evident until serious consequences occur.

Regardless of low price and high equity, you need to know the true condition of the home you are buying. You need to know that systems are not only functional, but safe and in compliance with applicable building standards. You’re preparing to buy a commodity that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Spend a few hundred dollars to protect that investment. But before you do, be sure to find the most qualified and experienced home inspector available.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I’ve considered taking a home inspection course to learn more about defects in houses, to assist me as a real estate investor. Would this be beneficial? Steven

Dear Steven: The additional knowledge will adefinitely help you to do preliminary evaluations when shopping for an investment property. But when you find a property you like and enter a purchase contract, don’t let your own inspection substitute for an in-depth evaluation by a qualified, experienced home inspector.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: We purchased our home 10 months ago and had it professionally inspected. The septic system was included in the home inspection, but our inspector missed some major problems. During the inspection, he was unable to find the D-box where the septic pipes are connected or the seepage pit where the wastewater drains into the ground. All he found was the holding tank, and he said that it looked fine. Now that we’re selling the property, the buyers hired a septic specialist, in addition to a home inspector, and the septic guy found major problems. The buyers are now demanding that the system be replaced, and the bid for replacement is nearly $25,000. How could our home inspector have failed to see these problems? Susan

Dear Susan: My answer to your question will arouse indignation among those home inspectors who offer septic inspections as part of their services. The truth, however, is glaring: Home inspectors are not equipped to inspect septic systems and should not mislead homebuyers in the belief that they are able to do so. There, I said it. Now the flood of irate email from those home inspectors can begin.

The reason for my firm position on this issue is simple: A home inspection, by definition, is a visual inspection only. Home inspectors report conditions they can see and nothing more. This eliminates septic systems from the scope of a home inspection because septic systems are not visible or accessible to home inspectors. In order to inspect a septic system, it is necessary to locate the tank, to excavate the top of it, to remove the lid, and then to pump out all of the wastewater and sludge. Once the tank is empty, the true inspection begins. The walls and baffles can be inspected for damage or deterioration, the capacity can be considered relative to the wastewater output from the home, and the rate of flow into the seepage system can be tested.

The reason that home inspectors cannot inspect a septic system is because they do not have the equipment necessary to expose the components that need to be inspected. Only someone in the business of installing and servicing septic systems is likely to have the tank truck and pump equipment that is needed to expose the bowels of the system. Anything less than this, as a means of inspection, is totally inadequate and reveals nothing about the true condition of the system. Home inspectors who purport to inspect septic systems, but do not pump the tanks, need to face this reality and to refer septic inspections to qualified specialists.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I’m a loan officer and am currently processing a purchase loan for a home with a basement bedroom. The appraiser says the basement room is not a legal bedroom because is has no windows. In another transaction, an appraiser discounted a bedroom because it did not have a closet. Could you please list the standard requirements for a legal bedroom? Michael

Dear Michael: According to the International Residential Code (IRC), a legal bedroom must be at least 70 square feet in area, with a width not less than 7 feet. The minimum required ceiling height is 7 feet 6 inches. If the ceiling is sloped, the required height applies to at least half of the ceiling. As for windows, the appraiser is correct: Bedrooms must have windows for light, ventilation, and emergency escape. If a basement room does not meet these requirements, it cannot be considered as a legal bedroom.
The minimum size requirement for bedroom windows that provide natural light is at least 8% of the floor area of the room, and minimum size for openable windows is at least 4% of the floor area of the room.

For emergency escape, the openable window must have a sill height of no more than 44 inches above the floor. The size of the opening should be at least 5.7 square feet, measuring no less than 24 inches in height and no less than 20 inches in width. Windows should also be openable without the use of a key or a tool. Screens and bars are permitted as long as they can be opened or removed from inside the dwelling, also without the use of a key or a tool.

The code makes no mention of bedroom closets because these can be provided by means of portable cabinets.

Dear Barry: I just purchased a brand new condo, and one of the bathroom sinks does not drain as quickly as it should. Whenever I run the faucet, the sink fills up faster than it can drain. The funny thing is, it doesn’t do this every time, just sometimes, and gurgling occurs at the drain when the water is going down. What could the problem be? Lisa

Dear Lisa: The gurgling sound indicates that there is a problem with the drain vent. Lack of adequate ventilation can cause slow draining. If the slow draining is intermittent, it may be occurring only when water is draining at another fixture, such as when a toilet is being flushed or when the washing machine is draining.

This needs to be corrected by the builder of the condo or by the plumbing contractor who did the installation. And don’t accept excuses from them. This is not normal plumbing performance, and they should take responsibility for it.

If you bought the condo without a professional home inspection, now is the time to correct that oversight. A truly qualified home inspector will find additional defects for the builder to repair.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: When we bought our house, the home inspector said the bricks in the fireplace needed to be repointed. He said this meant filling in the gaps in the brick mortar. But a lot more turned out to be wrong with the fireplace, and we think he should have disclosed these issues. A few months ago we called a brick mason to repoint the firebricks. He said the entire chimney is unstable, the portion above the roof is crumbling, and water leakage occurs when it rains. The quote to rebuild the chimney is $12,000, and we would have negotiated this with the seller if we had known. Do we have any recourse against the home inspector? Jennifer

Dear Jennifer: From your description of the chimney, it would seem that the defects should have been apparent to a competent home inspector. If he inspected the roof, which would be standard procedure unless the roof was inaccessible, he should have seen the chimney up close. If he couldn’t get onto the roof, he should have viewed the chimney from the ground; preferably with binoculars. If he did a thorough inspection, he should also have inspected the attic, and this should have enabled a close-up inspection of a portion of the chimney and might have revealed the water stains caused by rain leakage. The interior of the chimney could also have been inspected from inside the firebox, with the aid of an inspection mirror and flashlight.

When firebricks need to be repointed, there are usually additional defects that warrant evaluation by a brick mason or a certified chimney sweep. A competent inspector, when reporting crumbling mortar in a firebox, will usually recommend further evaluation of the entire system by a qualified fireplace specialist, not merely repointing of the bricks.

It appears, therefore, that your home inspector could be liable for failure to disclose visible defects that were within the scope of a home inspection. You should notify him of these conditions and request a reinspection of the fireplace. If he has errors and omissions insurance, a claim may need to be filed.

Dear Barry: We are purchasing a bank-owned home, built in 1953. It is in horrible condition and needs to be demolished. When we talked to the county building department, they said that the asbestos had to be removed prior to the demolition. We have heard that the seller is responsible for removing asbestos. Is this true? If not, how much will it cost to have it removed? Michelle

Dear Michelle: Sellers are not required to remove asbestos, and when the sellers are banks, they are not even required to provide disclosure of property conditions.

Asbestos removal in a residence is only required when remodeling or demolition occurs, and the cost can be high if much asbestos is involved. However, you need to determine where the asbestos materials are, if there are actually any at all. Therefore, an asbestos survey by a certified asbestos inspector should be your next step. If the inspector finds asbestos, you should get bids from licensed asbestos abatement contractors to determine the likely costs of removal.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I’ve purchased six homes during the past 20 years and have always gotten home inspections. But I recently bought my first commercial property, a four-unit office building, and opted to forego an inspection on the advice of my agent. The agent explained that commercial properties are different from homes and only need to be checked by a structural engineer. I didn’t question this advice and am now lamenting that error. It’s been six months since the close of escrow, and complaints from the tenants are endless. The plumbing is bad, the heating rarely works, and the roof leaks like a screen. Why would a commercial agent advise against an inspection? Larry

Dear Larry: The failure to recommend a property inspection is a common problem with many commercial real estate agents. Fortunately, this is not the case everywhere. In some cities and towns, commercial agents routinely recommend inspections to their buyers, while in other locales, the misguided belief that commercial properties don’t need to be inspected leads to major breaches in defect disclosure.

At the root of the problem is a failure to apply common sense. The kinds of defects that would be reported during a home inspection are just as likely to be found in a commercial building, whether it be offices, stores, a restaurant, a medical clinic, etc. Roofing materials, for example, are subject to the same installation standards and are just as likely to become worn with age. Electrical violations involve the same issues of personal safety and fire prevention, whether the building is a house or an office. Plumbing problems are just as costly and annoying whether they occur in a master bathroom or a janitorial utility room. And the lack of heat on a frigid morning is just as unpleasant where you work as where you live.

Your agent’s advice to hire a structural engineer would have been wise in addition to, not instead of, a full property inspection. After all, what can the engineer tell you about the wiring in the breaker panels, the grounding of wall outlets, the function of the heating and air conditioning systems, the condition of the roofing, the safety of stairs and railings, the functional conditions of toilets and sinks, the water pressure, and so on?

In matters of defect disclosure, the same rules and reasons that motivate the hiring of a home inspector apply to the purchase of commercial property. Failure to recognize this fact can be a costly error for buyers and is a breach in the professionalism of far too many commercial Realtors. The purchase of commercial property involves enormous financial commitments, and the risks inherent to that kind of investment can be reduced by knowing more about the condition of the property being purchased. This should be common knowledge among agents who specialize in commercial property. Those agents who have not yet realized this need to reconsider the matter. Detailed property inspections are financially beneficial to commercial buyers and reduce the disclosure liability of commercial agents and brokers.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: When I bought my home, the seller paid for the home inspection. That was a red flag that I failed to heed. Now that I’ve moved into the home, it’s clear that the inspector, who was recommended by the real estate agent, was working for the seller’s interests, not mine. The fireplace was not even included in the inspection, and a chimney sweep has now discovered loose bricks, requiring $300 of repair. And yesterday, I learned that the debris on the skylights is actually dried tape, used to seal the cracks and to secure the loose frames. The cost to replace the five bad skylights will be nearly $800. I should have hired my own home inspector, someone who would look out for my interests. Is there any recourse for me at this point? Helen

Dear Helen: Complaints about substandard home inspections are among the most common subjects in my email inbox. In most cases, however, faulty inspections occur when inspectors are unqualified and inexperienced; not because of deliberate intentions by inspectors to favor the interests of sellers. Reports of inspectors who compromise disclosure for the sake of agent referrals are often heard, but in my experience such inspectors are rare. Most home inspectors are painfully aware of the legal and financial liability associated with incomplete disclosure and are unwilling to take such risks for fraudulant short-term gains. In fact, there are many home inspectors who would inspect a home with the same degree of thoroughness whether the inspection were being done for the buyer, the seller, or the inspector’s own family.

In your case, the inspector, regardless of motives, appears to have done a very substandard inspection. Fireplaces are included in the Standards of Practice of all recognized home inspector associations, such as the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) and the National Association of Home Inspectors (NAHI). Failure to inspect the fireplace indicates a significant lack of professionalism. Equally problematic is the inspector’s failure to identify the defective skylights. This should have been part of the roof inspection, also specified in the Standards of Practice for the profession.

The responsibility for the inadequate inspection is shared, of course, by the agent who recommended the inspector. Real estate professionals are familiar with the inspectors who work in their areas of business. They know which inspectors perform thorough and comprehensive evaluations of homes. Fortunately, there are agents who routinely recommend the best inspectors. Unfortunately, there are other agents who view such inspectors as “deal killers” and who avoid those inspectors when making referrals to clients.
Before you take action regarding the lack of disclosure, have your home reinspected by someone who is truly qualified. This will probably inform you of additional defects, not yet discovered and not reported by the seller’s inspector. Try to find an inspector with many years of experience and a reputation for comprehensive thoroughness. Once you have a detailed report, you’ll be able to address these issues with the sellers, the agent, and the sellers’ home inspector.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: For the past several years, we’ve had ongoing problems with our old clay sewer main. The line has to be rooted every few months, and the cost to install a new line would be about $15,000. Why is this problem so persistent, and what, if anything, can be done to solve it without spending a fortune? Gayle

Dear Gayle: Tree roots typically invade older types of sewer mains, where cracks and loose fittings allow roots to enter. Old clay sewer mains are highly susceptible to root intrusion because the mortar that was used to seal the fittings has deteriorated with age and because old clay pipes often have cracks. As roots enter these openings, they grow thicker, causing increasing damage to the pipes and enabling further root invasion. Root growth into sewer pipes may increase during dry weather because seepage from the pipes may be the only available ground moisture. But regardless of wet or dry conditions, roots are attracted to sewer pipes because the effluent contains organic nutrients as well as water, and this provides an enticing meal for hungry trees and shrubs.

Clearing a clogged sewer line with a rooter machine provides a temporary respite at best because rooting merely prunes the root ends that have entered the pipe. Once the plumber’s machine is withdrawn, the roots begin to grow again, and six months later the plumber is back. Chemical products can be flushed down the drain to kill these roots, but such products are not nearly as effective as portrayed in advertisements

The most common long-term solution is to replace the old sewer lines — obviously a very expensive answer to the problem. A less costly solution, offered by some plumbing companies, is the installation of a special synthetic lining in the old sewer main. With this method, the cost of excavation is eliminated and the seepage that attracts tree roots is terminated.

Dear Barry: I’m preparing to remodel my bathroom and am wondering if I should take a permit for the work. Basically, I have two questions: If the bathroom changes are not structural, do I need a permit? And when the city inspector comes to inspect the bathroom work - does he have the right to inspect other portions of my property where work may have been done without a permit? Dave

Dear Dave: If the bathroom remodel involves changes to the plumbing or electrical systems, a permit is definitely required. Alterations do not have to be structural for the building department to have authority over the project.

The building inspector has the right to cite any noncomplying conditions that are observed on the property. However, when the permit involves a limited area, most building inspectors are not this far-reaching in their approach. In most cases, they consider only the work that is currently in progress. But don’t take refuge in that assurance. The inspector has the power to be proactive regarding conditions of noncompliance on your property. In other words, don’t expect the worst, but be prepared for it.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: I purchased a home several months ago and had it inspected. But the home inspector (in my opinion) missed an important defect. One room has old-looking vinyl flooring which (I recently discovered) has asbestos in the backing. I realize that the asbestos is safety contained as long as the flooring is not disturbed, but homeowners tear up flooring all the time. Based on the age, I feel the inspector should have warned me that the flooring was likely to contain asbestos. Had I known, I would have negotiated with the seller to help cover the cost of having the flooring safely removed. Do you believe the inspector bears any liability? William

Dear William: It is not common practice for home inspectors to list all of the building materials likely to contain asbestos. If they did, the list would include asphalt composition roofing materials, roof mastic, drywall joint compound, old air duct insulation, transite flue pipes, acoustic ceiling texture, adhesive mastics for flooring and other applications, interior plaster, some exterior stucco, asphalt floor tiles, vinyl floor tiles, and of course, sheet vinyl flooring. But because environmental hazards are not within the scope of a general visual home inspection, this kind of disclosure is typically not included in a home inspection report, except where asbestos materials are exposed and friable, such as acoustic sprayed ceilings.

If your inspector had disclosed the possibility of asbestos in the vinyl floor backing, this would not have obligated the seller to pay for removal of the material. Homes are generally sold on an as-is basis. Conditions commonly subject to negotiation would include safety hazards, serious physical damage, active leakage, inoperable fixtures, or significant construction defects. The fact that you wanted to replace the flooring after acquiring the property did not obligate the seller to share in the costs of those upgrades. Most sellers would not agree to pay for asbestos removal in that type of situation. For these reasons, the home inspector is not liable for nondisclosure.

Dear Barry: A heating contractor who inspected our furnace said he found a crack in the firebox. He said that he caulked the crack so we could use the furnace temporarily. We had another contractor take a look, but he said there were no signs of any caulking. The cost to replace the furnace is about $2000. Where can we look to see if caulking has been done? Marion

Dear Marion: Whether or not the caulking was done is irrelevant. No sensible heating contractor would caulk a cracked firebox in a furnace. A cracked heat exchanger is extremely dangerous. Those cracks could allow deadly carbon monoxide to enter your home. The standard recommendation in such cases is to abandon use of the system and to replace the heat exchanger or the furnace without delay. The cost in dollars may be high, but compared to the potential risk, it is incidental. Your best course of action is to find a heating contractor who can definitively evaluate your furnace.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Building Inspector

Dear Barry: The sellers of the house we are buying have turned off the water service. Our home inspector was concerned about this, but dismissed it when the sellers told him they did it because the house was vacant. But this leaves us with lingering doubts. Perhaps there are some plumbing problems, such as leaks, that they’re hiding. What do you think we should do? Yehuda

Dear Yehuda: For a qualified home inspector, the sellers’ reasons for turning off the water service are irrelevant. The inspector’s singular objective is to evaluate pertinent aspects of the property, and that includes the operational condition of the plumbing system. Without water service, a plumbing evaluation is not possible, and the home inspection cannot be completed.

When any utility service is off during a home inspection, the inspection report should state that the inspection could not be completed and that the service should be restored to enable completion of the inspection prior to close of escrow. Without water, it is not possible to evaluate the performance of the sinks, faucets, drains, toilets, tubs, showers, dishwasher, garbage disposal, water heater, etc. Neither is it possible to check the water pressure, to inspect fittings for leaks, or to determine if water volume is reduced when multiple fixtures are in use.

If your home inspector did not stipulate that the water should be turned on to enable a full inspection, then you are not dealing with a qualified inspector. In that case, you should find another inspector and insist that there be functional water service when the inspection is performed.

Dear Barry: When I bought my house, the home inspector found no problem with the fireplace. But now, a chimney maintenance company has reported some issues. First, there is no firebrick on the sides of the firebox — just mortar and stone construction. While these sidewalls are greater than 12 inches thick, I was advised not to use the fireplace until it is verified that these walls are solid masonry, with no cavities. Also, the smoke chamber was built with corbelled walls (stepped) rather than smooth walls. I was told that this encourages creosote build-up, increasing the likelihood of a chimney fire, and was advised not to use the fireplace until a ceramic coating has been applied. Do you think the inspector is liable for repair costs? Bill

Dear Bill: If the sidewalls are as thick as they appear, without cavities, then the fixture is probably safe to use. If the corbelled masonry is intact and does not appear to be causing a build-up of creosote, it may also be safe to use. However, since these conditions indicate noncompliance with current fireplace standards, a home inspector would be prudent in recommending further evaluation by a qualified fireplace expert. If the inspector made no such recommendation, he may be insufficiently familiar with fireplace issues. In that case, he could be liable for failure to report suspect conditions. On the other hand, if these conditions do not manifest any safety-related problems, there may be no cause to take issue with the inspector. Either way, you should notify the inspector regarding your concerns and ask that he take a second look at the fireplace.