Home Inspector problems.........

[gadfly56]

No, but if a HI is funneling work my way it is just good business to take it.

Different professions have different standards, but if I did that as a PE, it could be construed as malpractice. My first obligation is to my client. I'm required to reveal, to the extent known to me, all elements of a job that affect the client's interest, especially economic.

 

[goldstar]

Simply put, as most have suggested, write a response on your letterhead that it was not required at the time the house was built but I will gladly install one at a cost of $$$. And that's it - make some $$$. You can get elaborate, snake a wire up inside the wall and install one adjacent to the sink or, if there's a neutral available in the switch box, convert the switch to a switch over GFCI. Bingo:thumbsup:

 

[david]

2014 NEC definitions:



.

Although the HI is wrong I would look in the switch box and see if a neutral is there. If there is I would look to see if I could cut in a receptacle and put it on gfi. And I would make it clear that it wasn't required when the house was built. It won't meet today's code but it would be a receptacle on gfi.

read back through, i did not see a comment from chevyx92 if what we are calling a half bath has a basin or not. if there is no sink than i would say the 20 amp circuit is not required if a rec. is added.

I think we should keep in mind many municipalities adopt property maintenance code with min. standards by which a property is determined to have to meet.

605.2 Receptacles. Every habitable space in a dwelling shall
contain at least two separate and remote receptacle outlets.
Every laundry area shall contain at least one grounded-type
receptacle or a receptacle with a ground fault circuit interrupter.
Every bathroom shall contain at least one receptacle.
Any new bathroom receptacle outlet shall have ground fault
circuit interrupter protection.

 

[readydave8]

As others have said, HI is not code inspector, and his report is more of a negotiating tool than a list of things required to be done.

 

[kwired]

HI is just someone that looks at things and makes suggestions - for buyer or seller. They can use his suggestions as a bargaining tool if there is serious problems with certain things. I doubt there have been many home sales seriously compromised but buyer or seller over a missing receptacle outlet. We are talking about maybe a couple hundred dollars to put the receptacle in, vs several thousand dollars at stake on the purchase or sale of the home.

If it comes down to this item being the breaking point on whether or not this home sells, the seller must want to get every penny he can out of the home and is willing to wait for the buyer that will pay all of them.

 

[david]

As others have said, HI is not code inspector, and his report is more of a negotiating tool than a list of things required to be done.

i agree he is not a code inspector, but i would make the point to those who are slamming the home inspector based on the NEC. the HI may be aware of other codes such as a property maint. code that the rec. in a bathroom is in fact required by that code.

 

[qcroanoke]

i agree he is not a code inspector, but i would make the point to those who are slamming the home inspector based on the NEC. the HI may be aware of other codes such as a property maint. code that the rec. in a bathroom is in fact required by that code.

If so he needs to quote chapter and verse.
Not "because I said so"

 

[kwired]

i agree he is not a code inspector, but i would make the point to those who are slamming the home inspector based on the NEC. the HI may be aware of other codes such as a property maint. code that the rec. in a bathroom is in fact required by that code.

If there is some authority that can force that receptacle to be installed then we have something that must be resolved between buyer and seller as one of them will likely have to make it happen. Otherwise the HI is just someone there to make suggestions, the home usually sells "as is" but the HI is there to make buyer and seller aware of potential deficiencies there may be. A lot of deficiencies on HI report may be used as a bargaining tool. If the receptacle in question is on of very few items and most are minor in nature, it likely doesn't have much impact on the sale of the home.

 

[david]

If there is some authority that can force that receptacle to be installed then we have something that must be resolved between buyer and seller as one of them will likely have to make it happen. Otherwise the HI is just someone there to make suggestions, the home usually sells "as is" but the HI is there to make buyer and seller aware of potential deficiencies there may be. A lot of deficiencies on HI report may be used as a bargaining tool. If the receptacle in question is on of very few items and most are minor in nature, it likely doesn't have much impact on the sale of the home.

Here HI are the same,

but most municipalities (cities) not so much in the boroughs and most smaller townships, have adopted ordinances that rental properties and properties at the time of sale must meet the property maint. Code adopted by that authority.

I realize this is different throughout the country.

I also agree it will be resolved through the transfer of the deed.

I bought my home five years ago in part through a VA loan, The VA was very particular when it came to the HI report.

 

[romex jockey]

Hi's are home inspectors not code inspectors so it's not their job to determine if the code applicable at the time of installation required a receptacle. Their opinions and suggestions should be just that, opinions and suggestions, nothing mandatory or they should state that the buyer needs to consult with a licensed electrician. The report should simply state that there is no receptacle in the 1/2 bath and leave it at that.

And that would be the end of the story until Sparky enters the entire conundrum

In contrast, an electrical credential like licensure provides for what is NOT an opinion.

It is seen as black/white by the litigant contingent.

For ex, most HI's are realtor spawned , and will go for the double tapped breaker , because it's a low $ fix , validates their existence.

IF you wish to be the good soldier , and pass by what are obvious and blatant electrical issues to address this YOU THE LICENSE will not be able to hide behind they, the uncredentialed 'opinioned'

So.....may i suggest doing said HI's bidding, and forwarding YOUR OWN report back w/invoicings, best way to rid yourself of low $$$ high liability jobs

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

Here HI are the same,

but most municipalities (cities) not so much in the boroughs and most smaller townships, have adopted ordinances that rental properties and properties at the time of sale must meet the property maint. Code adopted by that authority.

I realize this is different throughout the country.

I also agree it will be resolved through the transfer of the deed.

I bought my home five years ago in part through a VA loan, The VA was very particular when it came to the HI report.

If it is law to meet certain codes to sell a home then why is a HI doing the inspection and not the same AHJ's that inspect new construction?

A lending agency public or private can pretty much require anything they want to - though the public agency (VA included) will get more scrutiny on such practices because it is using public funds, but doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with local codes. VA could want codes to be met in an area that doesn't otherwise enforce such codes. This isn't necessarily a bargaining tool to use against the seller either, it is just simply stating the VA wants certain requirements to be met if they are going to provide funds for the purchase, and that the loan or other disbursement may even need to be higher then purchase price of the home to accomplish that.

 

[david]

If it is law to meet certain codes to sell a home then why is a HI doing the inspection and not the same AHJ's that inspect new construction?

The HI is not doing inspections on behalf of the Authority, the Authority sends there own inspector,

The HI on behalf of the lender does there own report. The HI report items had to be addressed before my lender approved the loan. The municipal authorities violations had to be abated before the Authority would allow the sale.

The thing to be noted is that the HI report may duplicate some of the same items on the Authorities violation notice.

I do not agree with those who stated the HI needs to give chapter and verse.

I also do not see any thing wrong with the HI noting that there was no rec. in a bathroom.

The property maint. code here requires a rec. in a bathroom. Typically property maint code items are not something that can be considered "grand fathered". Typically the min. standard of a property maint. code must be met to consider a property habitable. I seen a lot of bathroom light fixtures with adapters to provide a rec. in existing bathrooms. Ii have also seen a lot of extension cords in dwellings, Should a rec. in a bathroom make or brake a dwelling from being habitable certainly is debatable, i do not enforce property maint. codes that up to the municipalities property maintenance inspector.

The HI noted the rec. was not there. I'm sure the inspector had some bases for the notation. Just because it was not from the NEC does not mean the inspector was over reaching.

 

[gadfly56]

The HI is not doing inspections on behalf of the Authority, the Authority sends there own inspector,

The HI on behalf of the lender does there own report. The HI report items had to be addressed before my lender approved the loan. The municipal authorities violations had to be abated before the Authority would allow the sale.

The thing to be noted is that the HI report may duplicate some of the same items on the Authorities violation notice.

I do not agree with those who stated the HI needs to give chapter and verse.

I also do not see any thing wrong with the HI noting that there was no rec. in a bathroom.

The property maint. code here requires a rec. in a bathroom. Typically property maint code items are not something that can be considered "grand fathered". Typically the min. standard of a property maint. code must be met to consider a property habitable. I seen a lot of bathroom light fixtures with adapters to provide a rec. in existing bathrooms. Ii have also seen a lot of extension cords in dwellings, Should a rec. in a bathroom make or brake a dwelling from being habitable certainly is debatable, i do not enforce property maint. codes that up to the municipalities property maintenance inspector.

The HI noted the rec. was not there. I'm sure the inspector had some bases for the notation. Just because it was not from the NEC does not mean the inspector was over reaching.

In NJ they would be. In fact, anything code related would not be the proper jurisdiction of any municipality. I'm not talking about how high they'll allow you to grow your lawn before you get a violation, but anything that might be related to the construction of your house. Newark, for example, doesn't get to tell you to change the depth of your stair tread if it met the code at the time the house was built.

 

[iwire]

In my case I enjoy it if they are making statements or claims that are wrong.

I don't see anything in the OPs post leading me to think the HIs opinion is wrong.

Not insecure at all but, they need to be corrected if they are wrong and I don't see that as being out of line, do you?

HIs are not code inspectors as such I do not see them being wrong.

 

[iwire]

Oh yeah let me tell the customer that they will need to let me cut open walls and ceilings to run a circuit to bathroom because a "Home Inspector" said so. No crawl and finished floor above, you're not running circuit without opening walls and ceilings. I am on the customer's side as a professional and saving them money where they can, not trying to rip them off at the expense of a H.I.'s report. He's wrong for saying to install an outlet and it's misleading to the potential buyer.

The HI is not wrong, and no one is being forced to do anything, the seller can in almost all cases say 'No I am not doing that'.

Insecure? Somebody didn't have a valentine today.

It was a general statement not specifically aimed at you.

As far as my V-day, it rocked thanks.

My only point was the H.I. shouldn't write up a report stating that a GFCI needs to be installed when there is no outlet even there. Potential buyer doesn't know anything and reads his statements and tries to make home owner liable for the H.I.'s bogus write ups. I'm not out here to collect money using false pretenses to justify it. H.I.'s cost home buyers thousands and thousands of wasted dollars on their bogus write ups every year. I'm just tired of seeing it. I mean writing up outlets with grounds up saying they are installed upside down just tells me that you have no clue. If they are going to write things up and suggest anything, they should be required to have an electrical license. I mean after all they are trying to act like an electrical inspector.

It has nothing to do with the code so it is not 'bogus'.

 

[iwire]

i agree he is not a code inspector, but i would make the point to those who are slamming the home inspector based on the NEC. the HI may be aware of other codes such as a property maint. code that the rec. in a bathroom is in fact required by that code.

FWIW Here in MA a GFCI protected receptacle is required by some other rule when selling a home and an HI here would know that.

 

[K8MHZ]

I think one problem is the wording the HI used. 'Install GFCI protected outlet' seems to be a demand, to me, not an observation made by a non-AHJ home inspector. Why not "No receptacle located in half-bath"?

 

[gadfly56]

I think one problem is the wording the HI used. 'Install GFCI protected outlet' seems to be a demand, to me, not an observation made by a non-AHJ home inspector. Why not "No receptacle located in half-bath"?

When I went through my last move, nearly every item on the HI's report was considered actionable, both for me as a seller and for the folks I was buying from, at least as far as the lawyers seemed to be concerned. That is the fact of the matter. Since this is the case, the HI is a little more obligated, in my view, to justify his observations. In this case, a reference to a code or property maintenance requirement would not be out of order. Otherwise, the homeowner has to have his lawyer draft a response that demands a justification for installing a receptacle and around and around it goes. As an example, the roof on the home I was selling was 20+ years and the buyer demanded and received a concession, as well as for the exterior paint. The total was about $7,000 or so. I've driven by the old homestead from time to time, and what do you know, no new roof and no new paint job. Now we're probably hip to what's going on here, but for my next move (if ever) and someone wants similar concessions, I'm going to demand they go in an escrow account to be released only on proof of work, or directly to the contractor, and if it doesn't happen in 3-5 years, the money comes back to me.

 

[roger]

I don't see anything in the OPs post leading me to think the HIs opinion is wrong.

And on the other side of the coin I do. As K8MHZ he is wrong to say "Install GFCI protected outlet" seemingly to imply a receptacle was required by the NEC or some code. If the house was built before the 71 cycle I don't think a bathroom receptacle was required.

HIs are not code inspectors

We agree here

as such I do not see them being wrong.

And they should never include a demand in a report, so when this HI made the statement to "Install a receptacle" and not make it clear that it was just an opinion he was wrong IMO.


Roger

 

[kwired]

I think one problem is the wording the HI used. 'Install GFCI protected outlet' seems to be a demand, to me, not an observation made by a non-AHJ home inspector. Why not "No receptacle located in half-bath"?

:thumbsup:

When I went through my last move, nearly every item on the HI's report was considered actionable, both for me as a seller and for the folks I was buying from, at least as far as the lawyers seemed to be concerned. That is the fact of the matter. Since this is the case, the HI is a little more obligated, in my view, to justify his observations. In this case, a reference to a code or property maintenance requirement would not be out of order. Otherwise, the homeowner has to have his lawyer draft a response that demands a justification for installing a receptacle and around and around it goes. As an example, the roof on the home I was selling was 20+ years and the buyer demanded and received a concession, as well as for the exterior paint. The total was about $7,000 or so. I've driven by the old homestead from time to time, and what do you know, no new roof and no new paint job. Now we're probably hip to what's going on here, but for my next move (if ever) and someone wants similar concessions, I'm going to demand they go in an escrow account to be released only on proof of work, or directly to the contractor, and if it doesn't happen in 3-5 years, the money comes back to me.

We now need an attorney to sell a home? A few rare cases I can understand. Apparently we all chose the wrong profession.