Seattle Home Inspector's Blog

     Many homes that have crawl spaces have support posts spaced along central carrying beams.  These posts, depending on the spans and sizes of beams, might be anywhere from 4 to 10 feet apart.  Modern requirements call for these support posts to be attached at the top and the bottom.  The concrete footing for the support post in the following picture is out of sight under the plastic ground cover.  We can clearly see that it is not attached at the bottom----in fact the post is ¾" from touching anything. 

     Looks like it is time to bring out the "lumber-stretcher" and make that post long enough to make contact with the footing and then we can properly attach it.  Again, this is brand new construction----the contractor hasn't even packed up his truck yet----better get him back down here.

     The following picture shows a defect that is "speaking in code."

     The problem with deciphering anything that is in code is to go through the process of eliminating the other possible causes and honing in on the true meaning of the code.  So---looking at the rust stains on the floor---we can translate: "There are rust stains on the floor behind the toilet,"

to: "The toilet tank is leaking or has leaked." 

     What is called for next is actually getting down on one's hands and knees to see what is going on.  Sure enough, right above the staining we can see that water is dripping off the edge of the toilet near the bolt that holds the tank to the bowl. 

     On the other side we see an even bigger problem----the bowl flange is broken.  This kind of damage requires that the toilet be replaced because these kinds of breaks can lead to total failure of the tank/bowl connection which could result in personal injury and/or lots of water all over the place.

     So while home inspectors are not "Code" inspectors we must understand codes of many kinds in order to completely understand and communicate what is going on in a home.

     For me, Art doesn't do well when "confined" to requirements that have nothing to do with it.  For example it is obvious that a painting is going to be confined by the properties and limitations of the paint itself.  To say, for example, that it must be "religious" in nature is to add a secondary requirement to it.  There was a time in human history when Art was defined that way.  To say that only "landscapes" are art, is to also place limits on it.  For me the best art is that which has the fewest secondary constraints.

     But I digress from the focus of this post.  I thought I would share a photo of an indoor stairwell barrier railing that was another attempt at confusing art with the functional requirements of what a barrier railing is all about.  While it is "attractive"----it is barely functional at all. 

     To me this railing looks more like something a kid would want to climb on---much like something they would find at a playground.

     I would contrast this barrier railing with one that is 80 years old and meets all current requirements and is attractive as well.  And, while I would not consider it art at all, I would say that it demonstrates very nice craftsmanship and does what it is supposed to do----be a barrier.

     Take this plumbing vent for example.  If you look closely at the following picture you can see how the pipe runs down hill toward the point where it goes up, increases in size, and then goes through the roof.  It has sagged down because the pipe is now full of rain water.  This obviously prevents proper venting of the drain vent.

     Can you see why it sags down----besides the weight of the water?  It is normal for rainwater to enter the pipe and then just drain down through the system just like any other water going down the drain.  Notice where the two metal pipe straps have been cut at the last two hanger locations---left and right of where it goes up through the roof?

     Why would anyone cut the brand new pipe supports in this brand new house?

     This is how it got that way. 

     The piping was installed after the finish roof covering was installed.  By cutting the pipe straps, the pipe could be pushed downward to make installing the pipe's roof flashing easier.

     This is where the "forgetting part" comes in---and why even new construction needs to be inspected.

     Re-Inspects can be tricky for the inspector because what if the inspector sees something the second time that they didn't see the first time?  Not good right? 

     In addition to this, we are being called back to check on the work done by "A Higher Power" (Licensed XYZ Contractor) and then we are asked to sign off on it.

     Some inspectors won't do Re-Inspections for these reasons.

     First of all, lets discuss seeing something the second time that we missed the first time. 

     While no inspector likes to admit that they miss anything----we all do.  We are only there for a small amount of time and site conditions can be vastly different at the time of the second visit. (For example the house has gone from completely furnished and occupied to vacant and empty.)  Rather than look at the inspection as an "End" in itself, the inspection can (should?) be seen as a big first step toward "building an understanding" of  the home-----with additional info likely (or should I say "guaranteed") to follow.  So, the Re-Inspection might be seen as an opportunity to add to that overall body of information.  That said, the things discovered the second time better not be of the "Deal Killer" variety or something of consequence due to the inspector being distracted booking another inspection----or "flirting" with his buyer.

     The second issue is that of checking up on the work done by contractors with supposedly more "authority" or "credentials" (regarding their particular trade) than the inspector does.  If this was a realistic argument we couldn't justify any new construction inspections, because all of the work was supposedly done by contractors with qualifications that trump ours.  When contractors come in to make the repairs we call for, there is no way to know who's interests they have in mind----sometimes it is obvious that it is only their own.  It is a little different matter if the buyers are hiring the contractor and paying for it themselves. 

     But even so, I see no reason an inspector can't do a "visual" inspection of the completed work the same way they look at work done 1 year ago or 100 years ago.  Why would anyone think we would be responsible for declaring the work was done "properly?"  We can't always tell whether the work was done properly no matter when the work was done.  All we can really do is state what we can see----"repairs are evident"----or, there was "no evidence of repairs."  I know that people would love it if we could just wave our magic wands or turn on our x-ray vision and make "categorical" declarations about things----and it is just not possible----all we can do is tell the story of what we see.  The story can be told in the voice of the genre that applies.  Sometimes it might require the style of Edgar Allen Poe or Steven King, while other times the style of Judy Blume or Dr Phil might be more appropriate.  I guess my point is that the story should "COMMUNICATE"----whatever style is chosen.

     Let's discuss "serviceable" for a moment.  That is one of those words that have almost no meaning whatsoever in the context of a description about a component in a home----in my opinion.

     It sounds too much like something waiting for a grease gun, an HVAC technician, or an airplane at the arrival gate.

     I know what it is "intended" to mean, and I think there are better ways to say it. 

     For example, is it more accurate to say that the faucet is serviceable or that water came out?  You might want to then qualify the description with the amount that actually flowed or that the amount would not "typically" be sufficient or any other "qualifier" that fits what is actually going on.

     As inspectors, I think we have to be careful about trying to find one word that covers all kinds of scenarios.

     I am sure we have all seen those reports that read like a tombstone:

         Foundation----serviceable

         Roof-----serviceable

         Siding-----serviceable

         Furnace-----dead

         Doors & Windows-----serviceable

         Etc.-------serviceable. 

     No wonder they can crank the report out on site!

     First of all, what is "expected" of a faucet?

#1. For water to come out,  (pretty basic, but really isn't that about it?)

Then there is the long list of things that would modify that "basic" expectation.  Nothing else really needs to be said about the faucet unless there is something about the "coming out" that departs from the basic expectation, like:

1.   Not enough water

2.   No water

3.   Not hot enough

4.   Too hot

5.   Sprays all over the place

6.   Runs rusty

7.   Runs blue

8.   Etc.

     So, we might say something like, "Water flowed, and sprayed all over the countertop making the room blue.  I recommend repairs by qualified repair person to prevent spraying of water all over the bathroom."  It takes more words, but accurately describes what is going on.  To say that the faucet is serviceable actually tells the listener that the thing is either "ready to be serviced" or that it is "able" or "in a position" to be serviced.

     I think some inspectors are lazy and/or are scared to death of words.  Some of the "canned" language of the commercially available report software takes inspectors down this path as well.  Either way, it is the consumer that ends up with useless and/or unintelligible reports, which are passed off as "information."

     Remember though, it is the nature of language to not always convey "exactly" the same thing to every person no matter how vigilant we are, but if we just tell the story----as opposed to attempt to write in "shorthand"----the risk of miscommunication or no communication goes way down.  Especially if we stay away from "useless" words all together.

     Does your inspector use the word "serviceable?"

     However, I have learned----for the most part----to channel that inventiveness "within" the confines of the building codes.  There really is no place for pure "creativity" when it comes to construction----that is better left to Art.  

     I can already feel the hair on the back of my neck rising up as someone is about to pounce on me for defining creativity so narrowly, and----it is my blog so I can define it any way I want---call it Buellipedia if you will.      Anyway, this post is about where someone has crossed that line --------------------.  And while this tree branch barrier is "very cool" looking, and one might say "creative," it is totally inappropriate as a barrier against falls from the deck and/or stairs.  Since the deck is relatively new it can be assumed that the structure was not done under permit or inspected by any ruling jurisdictional inspector.

     For starters, there should be no openings greater than 4"----and the barrier should be able to withstand the efforts of small children to ride magic carpets through them (not exactly a quote from the code----but you get the idea).

     In construction, just because something is "attractive" or "cool" doesn't mean that it is going to be satisfactory.

     Well, like so many things, it gets more complicated than that.  First of all, even vermiculite that has any asbestos in it has a very small percentage present.   Couple that with the point in time (a few years ago) when it was assumed that that testing was reliable, with current knowledge that says that testing is not conclusive, and you then have even more confusion.  Now lets add to that, that homeowners are allowed to remove it themselves in some jurisdictions if they follow the proper protocols including getting the necessary permits etc.

     Again, what is an inspector to say where it is obvious that the material has been removed?  Forget about whether it was professionally done, or whether the homeowner did it.  As an inspector we can not know whether the stuff had asbestos in it or not.  What if the homeowner decided to do it themselves?  Let's make the giant leap to assuming that they went to the trouble to get the stuff tested and they have the results of a test (in writing) that says it has levels of asbestos below what is considered hazardous.  Now lets for the sake of discussion say that we have now found out that the test was faulty and the stuff actually does contain asbestos.

     Current regulations say to assume that vermiculite contains asbestos and treat it accordingly.

     We now have a home in which the vermiculite containing asbestos has been removed, but have no idea how it was removed.  Remember the homeowner assumed it had no asbestos----they have a piece of paper that says so.  I can imagine shovels and brooms and a regular old shop-vac churning the stuff up into a nice cloud of dust so thick they couldn't see across the attic.  It is not too hard to imagine this fine dust cloud finding its way throughout the home and half the neighborhood.  I hope they wore a respirator.

     No doubt the worst exposure is going to be for whoever removed the stuff----we just don't know how much effect the dispersion throughout the home and neighborhood will have.  While my personal opinion is that any problem is highly remote, I can't support that opinion relative to what the EPA has to say about it.  For "better or worse" we are more or less married to meeting the requirements of the EPA regarding Asbestos.  Who is to say that some rug rat crawling around in the dust in the basement family room isn't picking up some of this redistributed vermiculite dust?

     Again I ask the question, what is the "responsible" thing for the inspector to say when they find the remnants of obviously removed vermiculite throughout an attic?

     I am not sure that this qualifies as a "true contest" as there is no prize other than that good feeling that comes over you when you know that you have been "chosen."  Perhaps that is the best kind of prize anyway----and the only one that really counts----even when some physical prize is given. 

     The person (or "alter ego") that can come up with most creative explanation of how this installation got to be the way it is will win the "I-feel-so-good-inside" prize.  If you actually KNOW what the truth of it is, you automatically get to be my second Certiflied Home Inspection Assistant and will rank right under Raven DeCroe.  Now that will be something to crow about.

     So----EXPLAIN THIS:

     I am happy to field all questions; and, you may enter as many times as you like.  The only requirements are that all explanations must be "off the wall" (as I am sure the real explanation is), and they must be at least 50 words in length (I am expecting a LOT from Kara, Barbara, and all of you Cheryls). 

     It goes without saying that I am expecting all inspectors and family members to give it their best shot.