House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

Phone Book Referrals for Inspectors

Barry Stone — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:47:49 +0000

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: In one of your columns, a buyer was annoyed that her agent would not recommend a home inspector by name. I’m a Realtor, and our company has a policy against recommending any service providers, and that includes termite inspectors and home inspectors. We simply hand our clients the yellow pages and point out the section where inspectors are listed. Past experience has shown us that this is the safest way to do business. If a home inspector that we recommend makes a mistake, we could be sued for making that referral. We’d like to provide the kind of personal service that includes a list of reliable contractors and inspectors, but our hands are tied by fears of litigation; much to our dismay and disappointment. How do you view this position? Jennifer

Dear Jennifer: Your fear of litigation is understandable and is shared by many; not just in the real estate profession, but by nearly everyone in business; from grocers to doctors; from plumbers to engineers; from teachers to musicians. Trial attorneys, for whatever reasons, good or bad, have removed from our society the trust that was once communicated by a promise and a handshake. Instead, we have pages of fine-print legalese that no ordinary person can understand. Yet none of these documents eliminates the likelihood of lawsuits: They merely provide talking points for that dreaded day in court. But there are still ways of operating in this defensive business environment, without abandoning the kind of personal service that we prefer to offer in good faith to our customers.

The phone book approach to home inspector referrals may not provide the liability protection that Realtors seek. In fact, it may pose a higher level of exposure to tort liability. The problem with a yellow page selection is that a buyer may randomly hire a home inspector who has very limited experience; someone who is not very thorough or qualified and who may fail to disclose significant property defects. If a buyer chooses a mediocre home inspector from the phone book and the agent fails to give warning — to point out that there are better home inspectors — that agent could be vulnerable to a lawsuit, without having made a referral.

Fortunately, there is a safer middle ground between recommending a home inspector or supplying a phone book. Instead, you can provide a list of the most qualified home inspectors in the area and let your buyers choose an inspector from that list. In fact, you could ask a number of local home inspectors to submit a one-page flier outlining their professional credentials and their levels of experience in the inspection business. A packet of these fliers could then be given to every homebuyer. Buyers could select their own inspector, but their choice would be an educated one, based on information that would facilitate a more thorough inspection and, therefore, less liability. Run that idea up the flagpole at your next staff meeting and see if anyone salutes it.

What to do with a flooded crawlspace

Barry Stone — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:15:27 +0000

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: I recently discovered about 3 to 4 inches of standing water under my house. I pumped out the water and removed the plastic sheets that covered the ground so the soil can dry out. Once the ground is dry, should I spread lime over the surface to help prevent mold? And should I also reinstall the plastic sheets? Steve

Dear Steve: Mold prevention is not necessary unless you have moisture on cellulose materials. Wet soil will not support mold growth, so there’s no need for lime on the ground.

The purpose of the plastic membrane is to prevent ground moisture from evaporating and causing humidity and condensation in the crawlspace. If faulty ground drainage causes flooding above the plastic, then the plastic serves no useful purpose and does not need to be replaced.

The primary concern in this case is the drainage problem. To solve this, you should have the property evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to determine the water source and the best means of preventing future water intrusion. The engineer might recommend french drains around your home, a sump pump under or around the building, regrading of the ground around the building, or possibly la combination of these. Once this is done, replacement of the plastic membrane may be advisable, but additional foundation vents might also be needed to minimize humidity and condensation.

Finally, you should have the structural framing and subfloor inspected for fungus/dryrot or other moisture-related damage. In subareas with high humidity, rotted wood is common, and repairs can be very costly.

Buyers Demand New Roof From Sellers

Barry Stone — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:47:17 +0000

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Before we sold our house, I repaired a roof leak above the bedroom, and just to confirm that the repair was good, I climbed into the attic during the next two heavy rains. No leaking occurred. The people who bought the house hired a home inspector. He didn’t find any problems with the condition of the roof, but he disclosed the water stains in the attic and recommended further evaluation of the roof by a licensed roofing contractor. The buyers did not follow that advice and proceeded with the purchase. A few weeks later, it rained again and two roof leaks occurred. When the buyers contacted us, we asked them to get three written estimates for roof repairs. Instead, they sent us one estimate for a completely new roof. We repeated our request for three repair estimates, but they insisted that we should replace the entire roof. What do you think we should do? Lesley

Dear Lesley: The buyers were advised by their home inspector to have the roof evaluated by a licensed roofing contractor. They chose not to follow that advice. By disregarding the inspector’s expressed recommendation, they failed to exercise due diligence and are therefore in no position to make demands at this time. By waiving the home inspector’s recommendation, they were, in effect, accepting the roof in as-is condition.

A second vital point is that their home inspector did not cite any physical damage or other observable defects on the roofing itself. He merely reported evidence of past leakage in the form of water stains in the attic. If roof replacement is necessary, that fact should have been reported by the home inspector. The lack of such disclosure indicates that the home inspector regarded the roof as needing possible repair, rather than total replacement.

Given the buyers’ acceptance of the roof as reported by their home inspector, and given the inspector’s lack of major defect disclosures, it would appear that the buyers’ demand for a new roof is unreasonable and overreaching. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee that they will not continue to pressure you for a new roof or to use legal pressure to achieve that end.

What you need at this point is a detailed written report of the roof’s condition by a qualified expert, with lots of pictures of the existing roof. It would also help to have the buyers’ home inspector reinspect the roof to see whether he will confirm or alter his original findings. If the buyers are intent upon pursuing the demand for a new roof, they should cooperate with this discovery process.

Should We Tell Our Home Inspector About the Mold?

Barry Stone — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:06:13 +0000

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We’re about to buy a six-year-old home that originally had a mold problem. Fortunately, the builder removed all of the affected materials from the building. If we buy this home, are we required to disclose the initial mold issue to our home inspector, or should we wait to see if he notices any evidence of mold? Jack

Dear Lars: What possible advantage could there be in withholding information that would assist your home inspector in evaluating the property you are buying? The inspector is your hired consultant; there for your exclusive benefit; to provide you with essential decision-making data. Any information or other assistance you can provide toward full evaluation of the property is to your advantage. If the property has a history of mold, let your inspector know about it. That way, pertinent moisture conditions and related defects can be carefully considered and evaluated during the inspection.

Testing your inspector, rather than lending your trust and assistance can have costly consequences. Here’s a true story that illustrates the point: The buyers of a home had been told the property was located within a flood plane, but they never mentioned this to their home inspector. The inspector observed no evidence of potential flooding and therefore made no disclosure of it in his report. The buyers therefore dismissed the issue of possible flooding and proceeded with the purchase. After the close of escrow, the first heavy rains caused ground water to flood the interior of their home. They blamed the home inspector for this “surprise” and filed a lawsuit for nondisclosure, even though they had withheld prior knowledge of flood potential on the day of the inspection.

If you alert your home inspector to the history of mold infection, then potential moisture sources such as plumbing leaks, roof leaks, and ground drainage problems can be given particular attention during the inspection. By withholding that disclosure, there is greater likelihood that a significant issue could be missed.

Be aware also that home inspectors do not make determinations regarding the presence of mold. Since the property has a mold history, you would be prudent to hire a mold expert to affirm that there is no residual mold infection in the building.

No Disclosure in Trustee Sale

Barry Stone — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:22:05 +0000

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: We bought a home from a family trust. The previous owners had died, and their adult children were selling the property. As trustees of the estate, they were not required to disclose any defects. But a major ground drainage problem was revealed after we moved in, and we’ve learned from the neighbors that the trustees and their Realtor were fully aware of it. The main symptom has been water in the warm air ducts below the slab floor. This was discovered by the first termite inspector who checked the property; so the Realtor hired another termite inspector. The second inspector failed to disclose the water problem, and the agent only gave us the second report for disclosure. Unfortunately, our home inspector also missed the problem because he never looked into the floor registers. Now he tells us that removing the register grills is outside the scope of a home inspection. We’re trying to sort out who is responsible for this mess and would like your opinion in the matter. Lars

Dear Lars: “This mess” involves two separate disclosure problems: Willful concealment by the sellers and their agent and professional negligence on the part of the home inspector.

The trustee/sellers may be legally exempt from disclosure requirements because they were not the occupants of the property. But there is more to be considered than the letter of the law. The intent of the law is to require disclosure of known defects. If the sellers knew about the ground water problem and its effect on the air ducts, disclosure should have been made on the basis of ethics and common decency, regardless of legal requirements.

The real estate agent is totally without excuse. The central point of ethics within the real estate profession is the requirement for full disclosure of all known defects. Exemptions for the sellers do not relieve their agent from this responsibility. If the agent was aware of a particular problem and failed to disclose it, that agent can be liable for damages and for legal sanctions by the state licensing authority. In this case, the agent is particularly culpable because the first termite report, the one that revealed the water problem in the ducts, was deliberately withheld from disclosure. Furthermore, that report can now be used as evidence against that agent.

Finally, there is the matter of your home inspector. He maintains that he is not required to remove grills from heat registers. Strictly speaking, this assertion is correct. Dismantling of building components is not within the scope of a home inspection. However, a truly competent home inspector makes a reasonable effort to inspect areas of potential concern. Air ducts beneath a slab should always be viewed as a potential moisture problem because they may be exposed to wet soil. Heat registers can be inspected quite easily by opening the louvers and shining a flashlight through them. Removing the grills is not necessary in most cases. However, floor grills are usually not fastened and often can be lifted as easily as opening a cabinet door.

All parties who might have provided disclosure failed to perform. The sellers and home inspector may have talking points to the contrary, but no one, particularly the agent, can walk away clean from this situation.