Tom Breslawski

I attended the classes last week at Chad's building in Albion, NY. The trip would be worth it to see the building alone. It's a real piece of history. The continuing education classes were excellent as well. I'd recommend Chad's "Inspector Central" school to any inspector who doesn't want to snooze through another boring continuing ed class.

I see the dates, but not the start time for the courses.

Like the others said, the rot or damage comes first. If you've got wet, soggy, rotten wood, you've probably got carpenter ants. I've used Dominion on them with good luck. It's pretty powerful. The ants can't detect it, so they take it home and kill the colony. There are also baits available. If it's a small infestation, the best thing that you can do is eliminate the damaged wood and fix the source of the moisture. Carpenter ants like damp wood, not dry wood. They'll move on.

Kurt beat me to it. The episode of Mythbusters says it all. The tank blew sky high. Not sure if Mythbusters is admissible in court. You are the governing authority, just call Watts technical support and speak to an engineer. Question answered.

Thanks, I will definitely do a little research on this and see if there's one for the job.

Thanks. I'm going to keep working on it over the next few days. The paint only failed like this on the west side of the house. It's in really good shape on the rest, which is why I'd prefer painting instead of stain. We'll see how it goes. I still can't figure out why he caulked between the shakes. This guy liked caulk.

Yes, that's what I've always thought too. There always seems to be some disagreement out there about it. The house was painted when I bought it 12 years ago however, so we're making the best of the situation.

I spoke to Chad about this earlier, but thought I'd put it out for some more feedback; Click to Enlarge 47.84 KB Click to Enlarge 73.64 KB Click to Enlarge 78.67 KB Click to Enlarge 59.86 KBthe paint is failing on the exterior of my house, mostly on the west wall. Wife & I decided to repaint this year. We've been here just over 10 years and haven't painted yet. Checking it out this morning, here's what I came up with; I use a scraper to get started but afterwards, the paint peels off in large sheets. It's clearly not adhering to the cedar siding, but this is only on the west side. The previous owner must have caulked in between the siding gaps (most are about 1/8 inch). Any idea why he would have done this? I'd like to paint with linseed oil paint, however this condition is only on one wall of the house. The rest of the house can probably just be painted with exterior latex, so I'm not sure that I want to strip the entire house when it's not necessary. The other option that I'm aware of is sanding followed by priming and painting. What type of primer would you recommend for cedar like this? Oil based? Do I have any other options that have been overlooked?

I did end up mentioning it in the report as a quick comment just letting them know that it's normal. This client didn't have much knowledge at all about houses at all. In the future, this will be a verbal mention on site. Thanks for all the feedback!

No, it's not a defect. I was thinking of mentioning it so the buyer wouldn't *think* that it was a defect when they looked down there, that's all. Thanks Chad.

This is the crawlspace of a lake house, built in 2006. No cracks or movement, just sloppy mortar inside. Everything looks fine outside. I do intend to write it into the report, although it's really just cosmetic, IMO. Just wondering how some of you would write this up (or if you would). Click to Enlarge 50.12 KB

Kurt's comment sums it all up. There is no cheap and easy way to get rid of that stump. It's going to cost you time or money, or both. That said, I've used a sawzall to cut things down to ground level. From there, a 2" hole saw into the top to create some holes. Let it rot for a while, pour diesel fuel into the holes and burn it. It works, but you won't get rid of the stump overnight. You'll probably have to reapply diesel and burn several times.

Thank you sir!

Why would the they have done this? Thanks, Tom Click to Enlarge 49.2 KB

The OP starts like this: "The 2x4 cleats on these 4x4 posts are attached with deck screws. Is that ok?" So how can you possibly say that the cleats were incidental to the OP? From my reading the cleats were the entire point of the OP. And the cleats aren't wrong; they're entirely useless. My point about the bolted connection is that not everything that's wrong is equally bad. Of all the things that a homeowner has to fix and maintain, fixing something that's never going to fail should be pretty low on the priority list. The cleats were incidental when looking at the entire deck. Yes, they were the subject of the OP, but they were just one more problem to list with the deck. Just because it's lower on the priority list doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the report.

A lot of poorly built things last a long time. Some who know me accuse me of being a pedant. It helps, S. to read the OP. The "cleats" were incidental to the OP. Around here they are installed on roof trusses to meet "positive connection" code req's. They are to resist uplift from winds. Yes, there was a whole lot of problems with that deck. Were the cleats the worst? Nope. But they were still wrong. Throw them in with the other things that were wrong and the chances for a failure increase. I'm was paid to find things that are wrong, or could go wrong. As Jim said, a lot of poorly built things last a long time. I just don't want to be the one that tells them that something is ok when it's not.

There were two deck screws in each cleat. The cleats were not bearing on the footer either. I didn't perform a formal load calculation, but common sense told me that two deck screws probably wasn't enough, so I decided to write them up as a potential failure. Even though the deck wasn't very high, a surprise fall from that distance could cause quite a bit of injury.

The screws are not being used for structural reinforcement in this case. All weight is heading straight down. Writing up screws in this situation is a needless complaint. I disagree, Mike. The screws are under shear loads- glance at the rear post in the photo- it's evident that the ledger boards are just attached to the sides of the columns and no not rest on the footers. Also, it's pretty unlikely that the 2X ledgers are rated for ground contact. You are correct Chad. I did write this up in the report. The 2x4's do not contact the footers. This is another photo from the same deck. Click to Enlarge 34.77 KB ...looks like they have uplift taken care of anyway...except that the screws are also not the manufacturer's spec for the hardware.[] That went in the report too. I think the homeowner liked deck screws. A lot.

The screws are not being used for structural reinforcement in this case. All weight is heading straight down. Writing up screws in this situation is a needless complaint. I disagree, Mike. The screws are under shear loads- glance at the rear post in the photo- it's evident that the ledger boards are just attached to the sides of the columns and no not rest on the footers. Also, it's pretty unlikely that the 2X ledgers are rated for ground contact. You are correct Chad. I did write this up in the report. The 2x4's do not contact the footers. This is another photo from the same deck. Click to Enlarge 34.77 KB

Right. That went in the report too. The whole place seemed to be built with deck screws. Thanks!

That's what I thought. Looking for confirmation. Thanks to all.

The 2x4 cleats on these 4x4 posts are attached with deck screws. Is that ok? This is a basket case...... Click to Enlarge 70.38 KB

Having a spouse with a good job is the best advise I've seen so far. It helps during slow times.

I don't inspect pools. In the report, I make sure and state that I do not inspect pools and recommend that they have it inspected by someone qualified. I do inspect the electrical associated with the pool, recommend a fence if there is none. That's about it.