Inspector Brush Off
June 8, 2005
Its hard to convince someone of the importance of a home inspection on a brand new, never been lived in home. The building had to pass inspection, right? Sometimes a few examples help a prospective client see the possible value of checking the builder’s work. Today’s inspection for example, provided me with at least a couple of good stories.
Many patios have what we term “typical cracking” which is cosmetic and usually caused by shrinkage or a small amount of settlement. When I made the remark to my client that the house still needed some work to be finished and the only thing that really concerned me was the significant cracking at the patio, he replied, significant? The builder told him that all concrete cracks, just a matter of where. That this was typical and nothing to be concerned with. Now there’s a brush off. Funny, the front patio, same size and configuration had no cracks to speak of.
Significant cracking, i.e. differential elliptical movement surrounded all of the bearing posts that carried the patio cover. The cracks were a 1/8″ to 3/16th’s wide with vertical movement of a 1/8″ to 3/16th’s. The post areas were sinking. Needless to say, I recommended a structural engineer to evaluate with repair as necessary.
The second example derived from this inspection was that the built up paper roof was never coated with the required UV protectant such as elastomeric. There was a guy there, not sure who he was exactly but, when I was relaying the fact of the missing roof coating he breaks into the conversation and say’s “around here the builders regard the coating as optional, it’s not really needed except to reflect the heat”. I let him save face by remarking that he would be correct if this was a rubberized built up roof, but it wasn’t.
Stuff like this happens all the time on the brand new ones. You can use these examples if you like, in your presentations.
Copyright © 2005 by Bob Kille. To read other home inspection related articles or to view home inspection software and book publications by Mr. Kille, click on this link. www.inspectorsuccess.com
Just Another Lazy Day
June 7, 2005
Every day brings a new perspective to the written words I use in my report software. Today I got a call from an irate home inspection customer who wants me to buy him a new water softener. This one’s 15 years old and leaking from the connections at the inside area of the tank. Here’s the deal. I inspected this house, oh about 8 weeks ago. In the report I list the visible water connections at the outside of the softener as corroded and needing repair along with the water heater, which was in a similar condition. The client who received a home warranty has American Home Shield stop by to evaluate and repair the corroded piping, however, the representative informs the new owner that water softeners are not covered. Hence, the call to me with a request for replacement? Seemed an odd request at first.
Apparently, the corrosion on the inside was much worse than the outside and the client feels like I should have told him the unit was in replacement condition instead of a repair. I must have inspected it as it was commented on. Well here’s the crux of the problem, I use a summary for everyone’s convenience and here’s where things went wrong. Not that the use of the summary failed it’s just that I got lazy, again. What I did was to combine the fact that the water heater and softener had a similar problem in the condition statement for the water heater. After all they were right next to each other.
Why was that such a bad idea you ask? Well, let me tell you. The condition of the water heater, which we must report on, was in a “Repair” state. The water softener which is outside the scope of a home inspection was in a “Further Review” state not only because its outside the scope but its also 15 years old showing corrosion on the outside connections. The “Further Review” statement was in the report at the water softener section to explain things such as outside the scope of a home inspection. This generic statement is not sent to the summary unless there’s a visible condition to attach to it. I figured, wrongly, that the water heater statement was good enough for summary purposes, a separate comment would take another half a second to include and just think of all that wasted ink and paper.
If a water softener appears to be in good condition I still put in a “Further Review” comment which doesn’t go to the summary. However, if I see an obvious deficiency it is noted and put to the summary with basically the same statement listing the visible condition. The fact that most clients never read the full report is not lost here. While I could defend the report and the full contents, I goofed and I paid.
Copyright © 2005 by Bob Kille. To read other home inspection related articles or to view home inspection software and book publications by Mr. Kille, click on this link. www.inspectorsuccess.com
Home Inspectors And Resistance
June 3, 2005
My home inspection today started off just like any other inspection of a new home. Arrived 15 minutes early, met the owner and like some nervous nellie’s she followed my every move. Were at the garage when I performed a pressure test on the overhead door opener. This is done by standing at the door and when the door gets to about my wrist I give it some resistance. Sometimes the opener will quickly reverse other times it take a bit more resistance. How much more resistance to give it before quitting is a function of good judgment. Ever get that feeling of “something’s wrong” Yeh, that’s right, something just didn’t feel right just before it reversed. With nervous nellie standing there I didn’t want to examine the door just yet.
Anyway, on with the inspection of the exterior, the metal paneled garage door down. I notice that there’s a damaged top panel at the garage door and point it out to the owner who says “that was never there before” and gives me a look. I couldn’t say that it wasn’t there before as the garage door was up when I arrived.
Now its time to start taking a good look at the door. I notice that the door has windows at the upper panel; gazing at the rest of the neiborhoods garage doors I see that no one else has this type of panel. The owner admitted that she installed them herself to let in more light. The attachment point of the opener was where the damage was and you could not help but notice the small amount of metal it was attached to after her modification.
Now I can’t say for sure if I damaged the door with the pressure test or if the door had already been damaged when I arrived and the test just confirmed or made worse the damage. This could explain the “something’s wrong” feeling during the pressure test. I do know that I’m going to closely look over any door with a row of windows in the top panel and I’m sure as heck going to start my inspection with the door down from the exterior.
Copyright © 2005 by Bob Kille. To read other home inspection related articles or to view home inspection software and book publications by Mr. Kille, click on this link. www.inspectorsuccess.com
Recent Comments