Buying a house a few years old vs wiring

Jpflex

Jpflex

Electrician big leagues
Location
Victorville
Occupation
Electrician commercial and residential
The last home I owned was bought 15 years old or so. It wasn't until 8 to 10 years later that I started having issued.

Upon going to the attack for flickering bathroom lights, I found that original wiring had a branch circuit feed a hall way receptacle adjacent to bathrooom, then feed the adjacent bathroom GFCI and then feed the distant bathroom 2.

After studying code, I found this to be an illegal wiring installation since bathrooms can feed other bathrooms but may have no other outlets such as in the hall way NEC 210.11C3, can a claim be made against the bank who sold the house without disclosure or the building company?

There is no evidence of remodeling or such to change original wiring
 
Liability would obviously a legal not a Code question so out of the realm of this Forum.
If it passed inspection and there was a Certificate of Occupancy and no damage incurred IMO and no obvious intent to defraud, there is little chance of anyone being held at fault.
 
Jpflex said:
The last home I owned was bought 15 years old or so. It wasn't until 8 to 10 years later that I started having issues... can a claim be made against the bank who sold the house without disclosure or the building company?
Click to expand...
You have to be kidding. Put a few dollars on the lottery, at least you have a chance.

-Hal
 
Jpflex said:
Upon going to the attack for flickering bathroom lights, I found that original wiring had a branch circuit feed a hall way receptacle adjacent to bathrooom, then feed the adjacent bathroom GFCI and then feed the distant bathroom 2.
Click to expand...
Just what damage do you think you incurred?
 
Jpflex said:
I think was built in 92 or 96
Click to expand...
Which doesn't mean the 90 or 96 code was adopted at the time the house was permitted regardless of what either said about the circuit wiring method. I'm using my phone at the moment but I don't think 210.11 had the same restrictions in the 90's that it has now
 
You should be able to find out which code editions were in effect when the house was first permitted.
 
Everything was fine for 8-10 years. Normal wear-and-tear on the circuits (constantly plugging/unplugging the vacuum in the hall; turning the lights on and off) probably caused the problems you experienced. Wear-and-tear is (AFAIK) not insurable!
 
roger said:
Which doesn't mean the 90 or 96 code was adopted at the time the house was permitted regardless of what either said about the circuit wiring method. I'm using my phone at the moment but I don't think 210.11 had the same restrictions in the 90's that it has now
Click to expand...
I see we'd have to know what 92 code was
 
PaulMmn said:
Everything was fine for 8-10 years. Normal wear-and-tear on the circuits (constantly plugging/unplugging the vacuum in the hall; turning the lights on and off) probably caused the problems you experienced. Wear-and-tear is (AFAIK) not insurable!
Click to expand...
Normal wear and tear bit doesn't explain tieing in hall with bathroom if it wasn't allowed in 1996 or bare wires from Rome laying in attack without being terminated secuted in a box with cover
 
ptonsparky said:
Fix it yourself. Make sure you update to all the current code requirements. Check everything. Don't forget those AFCIs.
Click to expand...
The house was sold a couple of years ago as is but I was asking hypothetically
 
hbiss said:
Oh, suppose the current owners find more irregularities. What would you say about them coming after you?
Click to expand...
Only after July 2004 did CA Civil Code 1102/.6h require disclosure of defects on Transfer on Disclosure Statements (TDS). That was a new real estate law. Not sure what other laws allow recovery from of such defects.

Not aware what laws in other states require appraiser, contractor, DIY, hack, house flipper, owner builder, or realtor, to disclose construction defect, fire hazard, or booby trap, known to disqualify insurance claims, or cause unsuspecting buyers a complete loss.

If you ever sit in small claims, you will find 99% of those cases are personal injury claims trying to force insurance to pay vehicle-accident claims, which they typically deny until forced to pay.
 
ramsy said:
Only after July 2004 did CA Civil Code 1102/.6h require disclosure of defects on Transfer on Disclosure Statements (TDS). That was a new real estate law. Not sure what other laws allow recovery from of such defects.

Not aware what laws in other states require appraiser, contractor, DIY, hack, house flipper, owner builder, or realtor, to disclose construction defect, fire hazard, or booby trap, known to disqualify insurance claims, or cause unsuspecting buyers a complete loss.

If you ever sit in small claims, you will find 99% of those cases are personal injury claims trying to force insurance to pay vehicle-accident claims, which they typically deny until forced to pay.
Click to expand...
Like builders, realtors, bankers and city officials that knew the dang hillside has been moving for close to 60 years?
 
ptonsparky said:
Like builders, realtors, bankers and city officials that knew the dang hillside has been moving for close to 60 years?
Click to expand...
On local new interviews, those home owners are speaking litigation language, as if coached by attorneys.

City & utility are in CYA mode, so historical evidence would have long been lost, or shredded, by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top