mthomas1

Looking back, when I was first getting started in this business it was just pure dumb luck that I'd didn't get sued for some of the things I missed. That, and the fact that my clients saw I was working very hard trying to do a good job, and that I was on the spot, pronto, when there was a complaint. And the thing is, many of these were things I would still "miss" today - the difference is that back then I didn't understand the job well enough to make clear to my clients the practical limitations of what I could do under the conditions of a typical home inspection (often, I didn't really understand them myself). I wasn't saying things like "When I can find two cracked rafters like these in twenty minutes, it is entirely possible that the when a carpenter gets up here to repair them , sets up his work lights, and carefully examines every rafter, he will find additional cracks that I can't see under these conditions in the time I have to inspect this attic" or "When a property has a second layer of siding installed like this, I have no way to determine if the water seals - especially at the windows and doors - are adequate. I didn't see any evidence of water intrusion at the interior, but I know from experience that if you get a "once a decade" hard driving rain it's possible you'll see moisture present at the interior, especially around these windows". Of course there are times when we do miss things we should have seen - all it takes is a mote of dust in your eye or moments distraction answering a client's question, or we are just not aware of the significance of what we do see. And there are people determined to sue you for the things you could not have discovered (for example, the grossly insufficient header over a modified interior load bearing wall that becomes apparent when the new owners fill the king-size water bed on the floor above), and people ready to sue you when they know it's not your fault, but who are looking for somebody to pay for their own negligence, greed, ignorance, inefficiency or stupidity. But based on the anecdotal experiences of other inspectors, and my own interactions with clients, I suspect that much of our liability is for "oversights" that we should have educated our clients to understand are actually outside the practical scope of our inspections.

I was more that a bit surprised to discover that (underlining mine): Clarification on Ban of Asbestos-Containing Materials April 28, 1999 I. Introduction: This clarification presents correct information with regard to the status of asbestos products that are banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at this time, as well as categories of asbestos-containing products that are NOT subject to a ban. The clarification is needed because EPA finds that there are misunderstandings about its bans on asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and products or uses. Newspaper and magazine articles, Internet information, even some currently available (but outdated) documents from the EPA and other federal agencies may contain statements about an EPA asbestos ban that are incorrect... III. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA) Authority: A. July 1989 EPA rule commonly known as the Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule (40 CFR 763, Sec. 762.160 - 763.179) NOTE: Much of the original rule was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. Thus, the original 1989 EPA ban on the U.S. manufacture, importation, processing, or distribution in commerce of many asbestos-containing product categories was set aside and did not take effect. B. Federal Register, Nov. 5, 1993 (58 FR 58964), factual determinations:continuing restrictions on certain asbestos-containing products. In this FR notice, EPA stated its position regarding the status of its ban on various asbestos-containing product categories. The status is briefly summarized below: Products still banned - Six asbestos-containing product categories that are still subject to the asbestos ban include: 1) corrugated paper, 2) rollboard, 3) commercial paper, 4) speciality paper, 5) flooring felt, and 6) new uses of asbestos. Products not banned - Asbestos-containing product categories no longer subject to the 1989 TSCA ban include: asbestos-cement corrugated sheet, asbestos-cement flat sheet, asbestos clothing, pipeline wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle, millboard, asbestos-cement pipe, automatic transmission components, clutch facings, friction materials, disc brake pads, drum brake linings, brake blocks, gaskets, non-roofing coatings, and roof coatings. C. Federal Register, June 28, 1994 (59 FR 33208), Technical Amendment in Response to Court Decision on Asbestos Revised the language of the asbestos ban rule to conform to the 1991 Court decision. Contains definitions; manufacturing and importation prohibitions; processing, and distribution in commerce prohibitions. Also clarifies labeling requirements for specified asbestos-containing products. IV. SUMMARY A. BANS on some ACM products and uses remain at this time (April 1999) What are they? Under the Clean Air Act: * Most spray-applied Surfacing ACM * Sprayed-on application of materials containing more than 1% asbestos to buildings, structures, pipes, and conduits unless the material is encapsulated with a bituminous or resinous binder during spraying and the materials are not friable after drying. * Wet-applied and pre-formed asbestos pipe insulation, and pre-formed asbestos block insulation on boilers and hot water tanks. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act: * Corrugated paper, rollboard, commercial paper, specialty paper, flooring felt, and new uses of asbestos. B. EPA has no existing bans on most other asbestos-containing products or uses. Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OWCM.NSF/ff9b947f011c3690882564e40077055b/43ec9d1bd99e460588256770007c17a8?OpenDocument This is 180 degrees off from almost everything that I have read about asbestos and almost everything that's been said in casual conversation with other home inspectors, and I'm now wondering what the heck else I don't know about asbestos and its legal status. I was not able to establish easily whether much ready modern residential flooring material contained substantial quantities of asbestos, but here's the comment that got me wondering: "The worst part, I think, is that most people don't realize that you can still buy asbestos-containing floor tiles (among other things) in the US. Its never been banned. You can go to Lowes, Home Depot, etc. and pick up a box of brand new floor tile that will say absolutely nothing about "asbestos", but will still have 10 to 15%. They use magic words like "natural fibers" or the the specific asbestos name like "Chrysotile" or the more generic group name "Serpentine"." Anyone have a really up-to-date source that addresses these issues?

I have Dragon Naturally Speaking working pretty well, this post is dictated with it, and I'll post it exactly as transcribed. It does take a good deal of training to get reliable recognition, and the software is a bad habit of dropping and, it's, that's and the like, however you can greatly improve the accuracy for technical dictation by deleting nontechnical words unlikely to appear in reports which are confused by NaturallySpeaking with normal report material. Having done those things I find that I can get through a substantial amount of dictation without heirs, and with the great advantage that there no spelling errors. One interesting thing about Dragon NaturallySpeaking is it is able to transcribe rapidly spoken dictation at least as accurately as more slowly and laboriously spoken material, since the previous comma I have been dictating with very, very rapid speech and as you can see it's transcribing it well. Looking back over this I see only one error: the substitution of heirs for error.

In addition to reporting visibly contaminated discharge from the jets if it's present, I routinely do two things to deal what the jetted tub issues: 1) I verbally explain to clients that jetted tubs require regular cleaning, and more frequently than they might expect.... that "for example Jacuzzi's instructions state that "for best results... we recommend that you purge your whirlpool bath after each use." 2) At every property with the jetted tub, a similar statement goes into the FYI section of the report, recommending cleaning according to the manufacturers operating instructions prior to first use. that way if somebody wants to start a fight over contamination of the jetted tub, the will be fighting with the manufacturers written instructions, not a home inspectors opinion. If I really want to hammer home the point, this graphic in included. Download Attachment: cleaning-ijacuzzi-500.jpg 96.82 KB

Can I take that as an offer to proofread my reports gratis? [:-magnify

Rob, The CCMC is here.

When Honeywell's installation instructions specify a location (not all do) they call for mounting the thermostat "about 5 feet above the floor in an area with good air circulation average temperature", and where the thermostat's will not be affected by "draft or dead spots behind doors and corners, hot or cold air from ducks ducts radiant heat from the sun or appliances, concealed pipes and chimneys and unheated (uncooled) areas such as an outside wall behind the thermostat". That's the closest thing to a "requirement" I've been able to find.

The most annoying shakedown I ever encountered was not as a contractor but as a private individual; my parents summer home in an unincorporated area of Michigan burned down, the insurance was well short of the replacement cost, and I ended up doing some of the work including all the branch circuit wiring (allowed, in that jurisdiction, if inspected). This was a very straight forward job as most of the interior walls and ceilings were left unfinished (a common construction method for unheated summer homes in that area at the time), so electrical rough and final were combined into a single inspection - don't remember if it was county, or state. Anyway, the inspector comes out, takes a look, and says "Well, looks okay to me, but I really don't like to pass jobs that were done by the owner unless they have been inspected by a licensed electrician approved by my office". Okay, can't fight City Hall. "How do I find out which electricians are approved?" "Well, the one we usually use is my son..." Son comes out, sits around drinking my elderly father's beer 'till the refrigerator is empty, never looks at the wiring, we get our CO. Having this yokel not only take our money but waste our time as well really stuck in my craw - at least back in the day when I worked in Chicago (this was many years ago, don't know what it's like now) they didn't waste your.... time time was money, and they had to get onto the next job!

Thank you for the clarification, makes sense, I wondered if that was what had happened and looked in both "active" and "recent", but the thread does not show up in either..

Deleted due to removal of subsequent posts.

Yes, if I see evidence - usually electrical or plumbing work done in an obviously substandard manner - that leads me to suspect that a substantial amount of work (say, a bathroom install or kitchen remodel) was done without a permit. That's a potential high dollar liability for a client, and IMO I'm remiss if I don't point out that they have the opportunity to investigate it further. There's also Kurt's concern: if I can observe this evidence, what is present that I can't see?

How long do you guys usually wait to see if its going to stat moving again?

I've been meaning to post about some of the access techniques I've worked up for flat roofs, and finally remembered to take some pictures this morning: 1) Often, I have to go up to the roof from a balcony, and often the ladder is steeper than it ought to be because of the limited depth of the balcony. In that case whenever possible I tie off the two sides of the balcony, it only takes a minute and eliminates the possibility of the ladder sliding sideways (especially if it's a slick metal cap) and greatly reduces the possibility of the ladder going over backwards. 2) Here in Chicago it's not unusual to reach the top of the ladder only to discover that there is a substantial drop down to the roof on the other side - three to four feet is common, and sometimes it's five or six. If it more than three 3 feet or so getting down off the ladder to the roof is bad enough, but getting up again can be a really terrifying experience, especially in the rain. In order to deal with parapets like this I cut down an old ladder to four rungs and installed a set of adjustable feet at the bottom, these provide about an extra foot of height when they are fully extended. I use this parapet ladder with a pair of stabilizers that slip into the interior of the top two rungs, this way the ladder is held off the surface of the parapet wall and you can get a full foot on the top rung. 3) On flat roofs the parapet ladder comes in handy for other things as well, in the third picture you can see how the adjustable legs are both extended for additional height and also extended to different lengths to compensate for the slope of the roof. In combination with the orange step through ladder extensions seen in the picture going up and over the parapet piece of cake, and every point you have a firm grasp of a support, and as you are stepping through the ladder instead of around it the operation of crossing the top of the wall is much less hazardous (and much more comfortable). The parapet ladder is a bit awkward to carry, but I've worked out a pretty good technique for getting it up the main ladder, over the top of the wall, and then back down again. And once I had started doing it this way I would never consider going back to attempting to step around an unsecured ladder and/or pull myself back up over a tall parapet wall and onto the ladder ... especially under wet and/or windy conditions! Click to Enlarge 50.26 KB Click to Enlarge 41.36 KB Click to Enlarge 40.48 KB

Plus, there's all the lovely things that happen to "winterized" hydronic systems... at least these examples were obvious before the system was turned back on... Click to Enlarge 25.08 KB Click to Enlarge 57.43 KB Click to Enlarge 27.06 KB

""Sixty days later, he sold the home for $120,000 and walked away with a profit of $32,000. After selling costs and paying a 15% capital gains tax, he made a final profit of approximately $27,000. 1) AFAIK, You have to hold an asset for a year to receive the 15% CTG rate. 2) Every state I've even owned property in taxes such gain, usually as ordinary income.

Has anyone here ever seen a false negative on K&T if you are able to get the tip in actual contact with the insulator/conductor - that's all I ever use them for.

I have the lace up type, and yes, they really do work. I've not tried the other type. I do wish I had bought them a 1/2 size small - you end up finding you need all the ankle support you can get. I keep mine covered with booties until I'm actually stepping onto the ladder, they are a *lot* less effective if they are even slightly wet or dirty. Also, I don't use them to go up a steeper roof than with other shoes, I use them on the same roofs I used to walk before, only more safely - as I quickly discovered they WILL allow you to EASILY get up on some roofs you REALLY don't want to go back down!

Here's what I have in my notes: "Older NFPA 211 standards stated (under 8-2.1.5, 2000 Edition): “…The inner surfaces of the smoke chamber shall be smooth...â€

As an 18-year-old just starting to work construction I walked off the south side of a roof onto the ladder without difficulty and came back the next morning not realizing that the dew on the north side of roof might have frozen. I put up the ladder and stepped up onto the sheeting, my feet went out from underneath me and I went backwards off the roof. I went down two and a half stories, fortunately through pine trees that the property owner had demanded be preserved. Nevertheless I was out cold after I hit the ground, but by the time the ambulance arrived I was up and working again - back then, without insurance, there was no way I was going to the ER. The next morning and for days thereafter I felt about the worst I've ever felt in my life, nothing was broken, but everything was wrenched, torn and sore. Fortunately that lesson has stayed with me, recently I was up on the roof of a split level, walked up the south side to the peak, carefully put my foot on the north side of my roof, while keeping the other foot and and two hands firmly planted - sure enough, it was glass slick.

Reading those is a really good reminder of why nobody entirely in their right mind would be in our business. It also reinforces a couple of convictions I've had for a while now: 1) In terms of limiting financial liability the single most important thing I can do is try and make my clients understand that in most cases I have only a very limited ability to predict based on a roof's appearance today if it will leak if it rains tomorrow, let alone how it will perform if tomorrow happens to bring sixty mile-an-hour winds and driving rain 2) Contrary to the argument some inspectors make - that every photograph you take increases your potential liability - a standardized procedure of taking photographs of attics, crawl spaces, utility areas, electrical panels and the like is actually far more likely to protect your in the case of an incorrect claim of negligence than it is to condemn you for an overlooked defect.

Winters here, business is slow, and I've been combing through the year's reports collecting comments I've written than should be incorporated into my report templates. Most of this is pretty straightforward, but one of the things the process does is focus my attention on the defects for which I'm not entirely satisfied with my current reporting. I noticed that the theme for this year seems to be how to report potential problems; for example you've got a relatively new roof on which somebody has slobbered up one side of a dormer's wall/roof junction with roofing cement, and underneath that a finished interior where there is no evidence of current or previous water intrusion, including when inspected with a meter and IR, even though recent weather has been wet. I'm clear about how to report what I see, what I'm less certain about is exactly how to report what I suspect, and how to separate speculation unsupported by immediate evidence of a current problem from reasonable concern that one is or will soon be present. What I currently feel I ought to say in such cases is that experience tells me that if somebody took the trouble do this patching it was because there was a leak, that given the nature the repair if this junction is not already leaking again it soon will be, that when the leak when it occurs may be intermittent, but that if there is any evidence of leaking in this area at all it's important to address it immediately instead of hoping it's going to just go away, that only way to permanently correct the problem will be to remove the sealant, determine how the junction is flashed and correct any defects found, that this may be a substantial expense, especially as it may be necessary to remove and replace some of the wall cladding, trim and shingles adjacent to the junction, and that the only way to be certain that you are not going to experience this leakage at an inconvenient time and before it has already caused some hidden damage (if it hasn't already) is to get a competent roofer up there to do the work now. So I even know what I want to say... but after mulling this over off and on all morning, and I just can't seem to strike the right balance between the known, the inferred and the suspected in my written recommendation in such cases. Suggestions?

So we are all on the Same Page: Water Managed Wall Systems - BSC

Are those nipples dielectric fittings? (Hard to tell, but I don't see a groove in pic....)

I see my post has disappeared. Rather a shame IMO, as I thought it was very much on topic... Oh well... carry on.

IMO, one of the best ways to experiment with a tablet is to buy a Motion Computing M-1400 (around $400 on eBay, look for one with the "View Anywhere" indoor/outdoor screen), for example it runs Homeguage 4 well. There is also an accessory lid that contains a keyboard, and adds only about 1/4" to the thickness. My experience was that attempting to user it at an inspection was distracting, yours may may different.