Home Inspection ....

[1793]

I received an emailed copy of a Home Inspection Report today. One issue that was brought up was a GFCI receptacle located about 3 feet from the above ground pool. According to the report there is no "equipment ground". Is an equipment ground required for this receptacle?

Thanks

 

[JDBrown]

I suppose that depends on when the home was built/receptacle was installed. If it was originally a 2-wire receptacle back in the days when that was allowed, and it was later replaced with a GFCI receptacle, then it's fine as long as it's labeled "No Equipment Ground" (406.3(D)(3)(b)). On the other hand, if a ground was required when it was installed, and the installer omitted it anyway, then it's a violation.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, Home Inspectors have a checklist of things they look for, and that's it. Their lists tend to include the general rules and ignore the exceptions, because (1) it's not realistic to expect them to memorize the Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Building, and Energy Codes; and (2) they're looking for things a prospective homeowner might want to know going in, not necessarily Code violations. He probably plugged in his tester, saw the "No Ground" LED light up, and marked it down on his form, without knowing or needing to know if it's really a problem or not.

 

[infinity]

Unless this is a storable pool the report should have stated that the receptacle is not permitted within 3' of the pool.

 

[1793]

This is what was reported:

GFCI outlet has been provided in the rear yard next to the pool but is not grounded. Recommend the outlet be made a grounded receptacle for safety. Electrician to repair.

 

[dereckbc]

Well this is the problem with Home Inspections as most are preformed by unqualified inspectors. As Rob points out the report is bogus as a recept is not allowed within 3 feet of a pool. Second point is a GFCI circuit does not require a Equipment Grounding Conductor to operate properly.

So if this is a client tell them the truth. They have two options:

1: Ignore the report and do nothing.
2. Pay you to remove the circuit to comply with code.

What you wanna bet they do not like your answer? :happyno:

 

[GoldDigger]

Actually, for new construction or circuits a place where a GFCI is required will pretty much have to have an EGC too.
So the history of the receptacle also comes onto play.
Removing it is probably the simplest and least expensive option.

Tapatalk!

 

[mjf]

Keep in mind, the home inspector didn't open the box and see what's really there, he just plugged his little tester in.

 

[david]

i think you have to make sure the required receptacle in 680.22 A(3) is there before you decide you can remove it altogether

 

[qcroanoke]

Keep in mind, the home inspector didn't open the box and see what's really there, he just plugged his little tester in.

Exactly, chances are there is a ground in the UF that was never connected. (if it is UF) I have seen that many times.

 

[JDBrown]

I received an emailed copy of a Home Inspection Report today. One issue that was brought up was a GFCI receptacle located about 3 feet from the above ground pool. According to the report there is no "equipment ground". Is an equipment ground required for this receptacle?

Thanks

Unless this is a storable pool the report should have stated that the receptacle is not permitted within 3' of the pool.

I assumed it was a storable pool because the OP said it's "above ground". I should know better than to make such assumptions. :slaphead: But if it is a storable pool, then I stand by everything I said before ... until somebody else comes along and points out something else I missed.

 

[1793]

I think this receptacle is the only one out by the pool and is used for the cord connected pump.

If I'm asked to evaluate the repairs noted on the report am I bound to correct things not mentioned in the report?

 

[qcroanoke]

I think this receptacle is the only one out by the pool and is used for the cord connected pump.

If I'm asked to evaluate the repairs noted on the report am I bound to correct things not mentioned in the report?

no,
when I have done inspection report corrections I was only to correct what was listed to be corrected.
There were some things that were accepted as is.

 

[GoldDigger]

I think this receptacle is the only one out by the pool and is used for the cord connected pump.

If I'm asked to evaluate the repairs noted on the report am I bound to correct things not mentioned in the report?

Are you being asked to evaluate the situations which were noted in the report but not do the corrections?
Are you being asked to evaluate and bid on the corrections?
Are you being asked to evaluate and do the corrections on T&M?

If you are evaluating the report based on an on site investigation of the items mentioned, then typically the owner/seller/whatever will wait for that information before deciding what to require the seller to repair or what to ask the seller for a price allowance on.
If you are evaluating the report based solely on the text and photos of the HI report, you will be less likely to encounter other violations.
I do not see a problem with the results of the evaluation including a report that in the same location there were other violations that the HI missed. IMHO that is part of an evaluation. But I would not correct anything without specific request.

 

[mike1061]

If I'm asked to evaluate the repairs noted on the report am I bound to correct things not mentioned in the report?

You are not required to correct every thing on the property, but what ever you do must be code compliant with the current code.
That's how I understand the code.
Thanks
Mike

Edited to add, If you see code violations, I think it would be wise to mention them. That also depends on how important they are. For example, if you see the main panel is not grounded/bonded correctly, that's more important then too many wires in a 1900 box.

 

[kwired]

that's more important then too many wires in a 1900 box.

If every knockout is used on a 1900 box chances are it has too many wires in it:happyyes:

 

[mike1061]

Chances are, if half of them are used you have too many wires
Thanks
Mike