Brandon Chew

John, To clarify -- I wasn't there and based on the info you've provided in your posts on this I'm not in a position to judge what you did in this situation. From your posts I know you are new and I also know that you are a conscientious guy who wants to do the right thing. My reason for calling attention to what you wrote is that I have seen many inspectors (in reports or message board posts) quickly jump and play the cya and pass the buck game on things that should be within the knowledge base of a competent inspector. I'm not saying that is what you did here; I'm saying be careful to not do it. I don't know the details about what you wrote in your report or what you told the client. Since I raised the issue and to be fair, I'll put what I would have done in this situation out there for review and criticism by the brethren. In my report, I would: 1) Make my observations about the exterior slab. 2) If I thought that the slab was not installed that way, I'd say that the only way it could move like that is if the ground it is sitting on had moved beneath it. 3) Say why the ground had moved, if I knew why, otherwise I would say I don't know. 4) Call attention to the fact that the ground holding up the slab is right next to the ground that is holding up the back of the house. 5) Explain that the purpose of the foundation is to take the weight of the house and transfer it safely to the ground, that movement of the foundation is not a good thing, and then make my observations about the foundation. It is not visible! The footings are below grade and should not be visible under normal circumstances. The foundation wall is covered up. (I'm assuming that behind the white paint is parging on top of concrete block, and that the interior surface of the block is concealed by some type of wall covering.) 6) Explain that even though I cannot see the foundation, I can look for visible indications that it has moved, provided those things have not been altered after the movement took place. 7) Report those observations. If I find stuff, that's easy. But let's say I didn't find anything. I'd report: "I looked for and did not find evidence that the rear foundation has moved, such as windows or doorways that are out of square, or cracks in interior or exterior wall finishes". Now, if what I had seen made me suspicious of a cover up, I'd zero in and provide more details of my observations of those windows, doorways, or wall coverings. "The parging on the exterior foundation wall is new and freshly painted....new paneling, wallpaper, or fresh paint on the interior wall covering the foundation ... new doors or windows... new brick veneer (or siding)....". 9) My recommendation to my client (in addition to telling them to repair the slab): "Ask the selling agent to ask the seller if there is any damage to the foundation or if any repairs have been made to it. Ask about the new _____ and why it was done. Ask for copies of contracts, receipts, and warranties for the new work and repairs. If you are not comfortable with the answers you get those questions, have a structural engineer inspect the foundation and either tell you in writing that it is ok or design the necessary repairs." Verbally, I tell my client: The agent may respond by saying the foundation was covered in the disclosure documents. Thank the agent but say "based on what my inspector found, I have some concerns, and I am asking specifically about any repairs to the foundation and about this new work that was done. Perhaps it may jog someone's memory." Ok, guys, have at it. Side note: From the exterior wide-shot photo, if the foundation had moved, I would expect to see it show up in that glass block window or in the brick veneer on the upper level, even if the parging was patched up and painted, and I don't see it (from that photo). This leads me down the path that this whole business about the foundation may be "much ado about nothing", and it is probably a subconscious reason why I felt compelled to start this discussion in the first place.

The three photos are all of the same cable. The first shows it at the wall, the second where it runs across the patio slab, and the third shows the condenser, slab, and wall. I'd say that the cable is adequately protected where it runs through the PVC pipe, but that the portions of the cable that are not in the pipe (on both ends) are subject to damage and need to be protected. That includes cable fastened to the wall adjacent to a patio where chairs, tables, a stack of firewood, the open lid of a hot BBQ grill, etc. could contact it. Interpretation of the protection requirement is subjective and will vary by the individual. In my case, I'd be willing to make my recommendation, put it in writing, and give it to the buyer (future homeowner). Would the "RE agent who says he is an electrician" and who says it is ok just the way it is, do the same? John - IMO good call on the cable. You wrote: "BTW, I wrote up the slabs too and called for a structural specialist to check for possible negative effects the condition could pose on the structure." You should be able to observe any negative effects the condition has on the structure, and if there are any, report them. If they should merit further investigation and evaluation (rather than simply repairs), call for it. But if you don't see any negative effects on the structure, then I think that calling for a specialist is not providing anything of much of value to your client -- it's just passing the buck.

I was curious about this so I took 10 minutes to hunt the relevant sections down. This is from the "Purpose and Scope" section of the North Carolina HI SOP: .1103 (b) Home inspectors shall: ... (3) Submit a written report to the client that shall: (A) Describe those systems and components required to be described in Rules .1106 through .1115 of this Section; (B) State which systems and components designated for inspection in this Section have been inspected, and state any systems or components designated for inspection that were not inspected, and the reason for not inspecting; © State any systems or components so inspected that do not function as intended, allowing for normal wear and tear, or adversely affect the habitability of the dwelling; (D) State whether the condition reported requires repair or subsequent observation, or warrants further investigation by a specialist; © This Section does not limit home inspectors from: (1) Reporting observations and conditions or rendering opinions of items in addition to those required in Paragraph (b) of this Rule; (d) Written reports required by this rule for pre-purchase home inspections of three or more systems shall include a separate section labeled “Summaryâ€

I wouldn't call for an engineer for a problem like Chris posted in the top photo. I'd call a foundation contractor to fix it. Jim covered the repair methods pretty well. While a small section of the foundation that bears an evenly distributed load might not be a problem, if the void was below a load path that was applying a concentrated point load on the foundation from above, it could be trouble. Excavating in the cone of compression along a footing is dangerous stuff. Depending upon the soil type and moisture content, it could give away suddenly causing a collapse. It'll look fine right up until the time that it isn't.

Good debate guys. For me, this issue is clear cut. 2003 IRC "§R905.2.8.4 Sidewall flashing. Flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be by the step-flashing method." My state building code is based on the IRC. Both codes are specific and mandate step-flashing. No prescriptive allowance is made for an alternative. You could go to an engineered design and get approval based upon equivalency, but why bother? Cut and pre-bent step flashing can be purchased at your local big orange box for about 30 cents per course and it is easy to install. The "but this is how we've always done it around here and I haven't seen any problems with it" argument holds no water with me. Not when I can point to the building code, the NRCA manual, and various shingle manufacturer installation instructions that specify step-flashing, and only step-flashing. Being a person who tries to remain open-minded about new ways of doing things, for three straight days I've read this thread and then tried Google searches to find something, anything, that recognizes this J-flashing as an approved method for asphalt shingle roofs. I've come up empty. If this method was in widespread use in certain areas of the country for 30 or so years (I don't doubt the people who have said so), AND IT WAS APPROVED as a viable alternative to the step flashing method, I should be able to find something on it, yes? The NRCA or ASMA would recognize this method, even if the building codes haven't yet caught up to it, yes? Just because some copper guys make a flashing in that profile and sell it, just means there is a perceived market for it, not that it is approved for use (slinky plumbing pipes are another example that fits here). I've got plenty of stuff, in writing, that says step-flashing is the only approved method. Can anyone provide a written source showing this J-flashing method is approved? Till then, I write it up as wrong.

Given that many HIs now routinely use equipment such as circuit testers and moisture meters, and in the future will probably be using infrared cameras, a more accurate term would be that it is a "nondestructive" inspection rather than a "visual" one. The terms nondestructive inspection, nondestructive evaluation, and nondestructive testing have been around for a long time in the engineering world, primarily in manufacturing and forensic investigations. X-rays and MRIs are an application of these techniques in the medical field. Who's going to be the first HI to advertise: "yes madam, I do have x-ray vision"? (FYI lead paint inspectors do this now) If curious about other NDT methods, visit: http://www.asnt.org

Thread drift... That is what jumps into my mind when I see spray foam applied to the bottom of roof decking between the rafter bays in order to create a conditioned attic space. WHEN the roof covering or flashing leaks, where does the water go ... how will the homeowner be alerted to the fact that it is leaking ... and what kind of damage is it going to cause to the roof framing and sheathing before the leak is discovered?

Most of the service disconnects I see around here are inside. It might have something to do with the homeowner, while in his underwear, needing to wade through waist-deep snow in order to get around the house to an outside disconnect near the meter, vs running down some steps to his basement. In an emergency the FD is going to yank the meter.

accepted vs excepted Inspectors frequently write excepted, which I'm not even sure is a real word, when from the context they mean to write accepted. Since accepted means allowable and except means to exclude, what they write is the opposite of what they mean to say. A literate person will be confused, and a lawyer would be licking his chops over that one.

It sounds about as feasible as getting four HI associations to adopt a common SOP. []

I check both. I don't think you get a complete picture of the supply system without doing so. Flow rate at any fixture is a function of the inside diameter of the pipe and the velocity of the water flowing through it at that point in the system. Pressure is the driving force pushing the water through the system and friction is trying to slow it down. You can have a faucet that has a good flow rate at what seems to be a reasonable pressure (at the faucet), but due to restrictions somewhere in the piping system a very high pressure is needed on the upstream side of the restriction to make it so. Since we know that high pressure on the house supply plumbing can cause problems, it makes sense to measure pressure coming into the house as well as the flow rate coming out of the fixtures.

Sweet. They don't make 'em like that anymore...

Put me in the "ghosting" camp. The source of the soot/dirt/dust could be from the furnace, or any other combustion appliance in the home, or from a fireplace, or incense, or candles, or be passing through the vacuum cleaner bag, etc. It could just be floating in the air in the room and doesn't need to have traveled through the duct to get there. There are three known forces that cause the dirt floating around in the air to be deposited in a particular location: impaction due to air flow, gravity, or attraction (usually due to electrostatic charge or moisture). I think we could rule out gravity on this one but the other two types of forces are clearly in play here. Assuming I've gone through the inspection and didn't find problems with the combustion appliances or their vent systems, I'd do what Walter recommended -- clean it off and see if it came back.

It's sad, but the fix for that is going to cost a lot more than it would to have done it right the first time. What's also sad is that the cost to fix it is probably high enough that, if the buyer didn't get a concession from the seller to cover it, it probably won't get fixed. They're going to have to replace the cabinet because there have been holes hacked into it, and probably tear open the walls to get the NM cable out of the pipes -- pipes that were not even needed for that installation. I wonder if the "plumbtrician" that did this work thought about whether the conductors needed to be derated once he started stuffing so many of them into a "raceway". Once the wall is opened up, then there's the whole issue of finding holes cut in the framing in order to run those pipes and whether structural repairs are also needed. I'd also bet that either no permit was pulled or that code enforcement is nonexistent in this jurisdiction, neither of which leaves me with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the quality of whatever work was done on this home in conjunction with that wiring job. I can hear the seller saying "but it's been working fine" and the RE agent muttering something about deal-killer right about now... I don't think I have a tendency to blow things out of proportion. In this particular case I think that what looks like a minor screw up to most people could have big financial implications, and I'd want my client to be aware of them.

This becomes a lot easier to understand once you get some basic terminology straight in your mind. This definition comes straight out of my code book: "SERVICE EQUIPMENT. The necessary equipment, usually consisting of a circuit breaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s), and their accessories, connected to the load end of the service conductors to a building or other structure, or an otherwise designated area, and intended to constitute the main control and cutoff of the supply." Look for the first point in the system after the service drop (overhead) or service lateral (underground) where you can turn off the entire power to the home in six throws or less. That's the service equipment. Sometimes you'll find the service equipment in an enclosure by itself but usually it is in the same enclosure with the branch circuit distribution panel (commonly called the "main panel"). Wherever you find the service equipment, that is where the neutrals (grounded conductors) and grounds (grounding conductors) need to be bonded together. Downstream of the service equipment, the neutrals and grounds need to be kept separate.

Garfield says this is a "new GAF 30 yr roof" and the GAF tech sheet that Bob posted says "Any type of roof cement or caulk used as a method of repair is not considered a permanent repair. This method of repair is an exclusion from coverage." While I agree with Jim and Chad that the mastic would probably work ok for a while, if you want GAF to stand behind that 30 year warranty then the roofer is going to have to carefully remove the improperly nailed shingles, replace them with new shingles, and then nail them on the right way. As Jerry said, call the manufacturer's tech rep to back you up when you deal with the roofer. 100 shiners sound like a lot to me. How big is the roof?

"Water has entered the panelboard cabinet causing rust and corrosion of the cabinet and the electrical devices inside. Water inside the cabinet and the damage it causes to the devices increase the risk of electrocution and fire. Have a qualified electrician determine how water is getting into the cabinet, determine the extent of the damage, and make all necessary repairs."

That dog looks like he's been sniffing nitrous...

Do you have a closeup pic of the lintel at the top right corner of the window? The location of that expansion joint may be ok if they detailed this area properly. The lintel and the brick to the right of the window need to be able to move separately from each other. See figure 6 on page 5 of BIA technote 18A: http://www.brickinfo.org/BIA/technotes/t18a.pdf

Hmmm.... ...realtors and neighbor's dogs ...Milk Bones and wooden staffs Yep. Multiple purpose tools sure are handy. [] This reminds me of something I haven't seen mentioned yet. I carry a leatherman.

Robert -- I just tried the link in Mike's post and it worked fine. Brandon

FYI -- When you renew, you get the CD/DVD and twelve months of on-line access for $44.95 I just renewed mine about three weeks ago. $$$ well spent.

It sounds like an amateur took the standard basement sump pump and tied it into the DWV system. This is probably not ok -- you would have to check with the AHJ to be sure (most do not allow it but there are some that do). If it is ok to do this, then the piping from the sump to the DWV is missing a required check valve. They need the check valve to keep the basement from filling up with sewage if there is a clog in the building drain. They need to get a qualified plumber in there to straighten out that mess. The proper way to do this is to plumb the sump pump to the exterior of the building, and to add either a standpipe & trap or a sanitary sump and ejector pump to the DWV system for the washing machine. It's ok for the a/c drain to go into the sump pump.

Yes to flashing. No to caulk. Caulk should not be used as a substitute for proper flashing. A joint that relies on caulk as the primary water barrier is a leak waiting to happen.

Here's the relevant section from the 2000 IRC: The code is specific that the "discharge from the relief valve shall be piped full size separately" and that it can only go to one of two places -- either outside the building or to an indirect waste receptor inside the building. There are not any exceptions or additional provisions. An additional requirement is that the discharge needs to be "readily observable by the building occupants." This is so the building occupants can see and become aware the the TPR valve is discharging. If the air conditioning condensate drain line and the TPR drain line are connected together, and there is water coming out of the end of the pipe most of the time (AC condensate), the homeowner might not know or notice when the TPR releases or starts leaking. P.S. - Dang, that Scott P is quick! I had a half-finished reply cued up, left to put on a fresh pot of coffee, and then came back to proof-read & post.