hausdok

Sounds like it could be. 1. Put a mirror close to the draft diverter on top and see if it gets covered with condensation because it's spilling. 2. How old is it? Maybe the flue baffle is completely shot and isn't slowing down the hot air rising up through the unit. 3. What temperature have you got it set to? 4. What control valve has it got? A few years ago there was a recalled gas control valve. Look at the recalls on this site or at www.recalls.gov ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Really, you Guys, You're going to have to dumb all of this down to the IQ level of a cricket if you want me to understand any of this. OT - OF!!! M.

Yes, most likely. It'll turn into just another revenue stream for the state instead of a regulatory agency. At least, that's what happened in Illinois. I don't think it will provice much money for the state. By law, the licensing program has to be revenue neutral. Initial funding was based on DOL's sunrise review estimate of there being at least 1000 inspectors in the state to license. They put together a budget for staff, hired a person and then began holding board meetings and gathering input, etc. Then when the grandfathering deadline was reached on September 1st they had about half the number of licensees that they'd anticipated; so they've actually lost money. They've already consolidated the employee's duties into the duties of another position, and cut back on the number of meetings, but it looks like, given the number that have applied to date and the number attending courses around the state, that they'll come up short on July 1st. Right now, they'll be happy if it looks like they can break even on July 1st and the number of renewals will be sufficient to pay that portion of her salary that's tied to the home inspector program. So far, I think they are at 365 licensed, 41 approved for the exam, and 3 pending reciprocity for a total of 409. If all of those were licensed right now, they'd have brought in just over $278K. If the numbers don't begin increasing a great deal, I think they're going to run out of money somewhere around 2011. Don't bank on that though - when it comes to money, I'm dumber than a box of donuts. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

What it will do is remove the DOL Director's most direct route to assistance understanding home inspection issues. Once the board is eliminated, there won't be any more home inspectors advising the single DOL employee responsible for overseeing home inspector issues and implementing new policy; she'll be entirely on her own. We board members have been expecting this, and have been working as hard as we can to get all potential issues ironed out for her by the July deadline, but I think that, without the advice and assistance of the board and the various committees, she's going to be bogged down come July 1st, when full licensing for all home inspectors goes into effect. It's a mystery to me how they plan to investigate any complaints made against home inspectors by consumers; if they don't have any experienced home inspectors, that understand all of the issues and implications involved, available to perform the investigations. I'm guessing it will end up like other states where the only actual "enforcement" can't be done without someone literally ratting out another inspector and providing DOL incontrovertible proof. Seems to me, that it wouldn't take that much money to set it up so that the board could hold all meetings via Go-to-meeting.com, therefore there wouldn't be any need to pay for the use of hotel conference rooms, refreshments, per diem and travel expenses for all board members plus the DOL staff. It's certainly not like any of the board has done all of this work for the money; I think I was paid something like $120 for the last all-day meeting I had to attend where I drove down there - I turned away a $650 job that someone wanted me to do that day that couldn't be done on any other day. That's been the case for every meeting; plus every time I've had to go to Olympia to address committees I had to turn away work and I wasn't paid for those trips. It's the same with all other board members; the pay sucks and the work is like repeatedly getting the same wisdom tooth pulled over and over and over and over and...... ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Olympia, WA - Dec. 4, 2009 On Thursday, Gov. Gregoire announced additional measures to reform state government, including elimination of 17 boards and commissions, and plans to introduce legislation to eliminate an additional 78 advisory boards, including the Washington State Home Inspector Advisory Licensing Board. Gregoire also signed a directive suspending expenses and travel costs for board and commission members. Gregoire proposes eliminating boards and commissions, reorganizing small agencies and the Department of Commerce and consolidating back-office functions “Just like private businesses, state government must make changes to get the most value for our investments while maintaining the highest level of customer service,â€

Is it equipped with one of those self-diagnostic setups with the LED that flashes code at you to tell you what's wrong with it? OT - OF!!! M.

Why don't you start by calling the manufacturer's technical assistance folks? They've probably encountered the problem on others' units and will know what the fix is. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Marc, I don't think you're odd man out; I think that you're doing what most of us do. We all (At least I think we all) try to serve our clients to the best of our abilities, without overstepping our bounds. I routinely tell folks that I think the best policy is to tear down to the deck and reroof with one layer, but I don't have anything I can point to that makes that mandatory except in the case of a shake roof. If a client want to follow that recommendation, they need to understand that doing so could very well be at their own expense. Sometimes, our opinions notwithstanding, sellers have the edge over a buyer and all the common sense in the world won't help help unless the buyer can show that what the seller has done is outright illegal. That can be pretty difficult when/if the AHJ isn't on board with your own recommendation. That's why I was so happy when Seattle finally changed their rules; I now carry a tattered copy of those rules in my clipboard for this very issue. When an agent, owner or a roofer starts arguing that Seattle doesn't prohibit more than two layers, or that they're allowed to install up to 3 layers, I love to practically shove that document down their throats. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that this law actually sets a minimum award; I think it only prevents an inspector from limiting his/her liability to anything less than $2000. I doubt there is anything in that law that prevents a home inspector from saying, "You know what, I might not be allowed to limit my liability to less than $2000 for major screw-ups, but if you think that I'm going to give you $2000 for a $50 error, you're out of your tree. Take me to small claims court." Something else, am I remembering it incorrectly or doesn't this law also cap liability at $10,000 unless a court decides differently? Anyone out there a Kansas inspector whose actually had his/her lawyer look at this and explain it? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I've said it before: licensing doesn't improve our profession. All it does is make every inspector have the same credential so that we become a commodity. I dunno, I think that if licensing establishes a consistent baseline for competency that all inspectors must meet, instead of grandfathering individuals based on time in business or number of inspections, that equates to some degree of improvement. Maybe not a lot of improvement, but any improvement is better than none at all in my book. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I once had a 1920's Tudor in Seattle with six actual full layers over a layer of original cedar shingles. I called the city to ask how many were allowed. "As many as they want," said the code guy, "We've never adopted any restriction on the number of layers. If a homeowner wants to put that many layers on, it's up to the homeowner." I couldn't believe my ears; and the client, having used option B, couldn't get out of the deal based on the roof thanks to the city. Thankfully, since then they've changed their policy and they do now restrict the number of layers to two; however, they still allow the old cedar shingle decks to be used as a roof base. That's an issue around here since most roofers here aren't old enough to know that when they do that they're supposed to cut back the first ten inches of material around the perimeter and replace it with one-by before they start applying the new deck. Still, it's probably a non-issue since I don't think one could find a roofer these days that's going to waste time tearing off and leaving an old cedar shingle deck when a new deck can be thrown on in half the time and with half the aggravation of trying to separate old layers of roofing from an old shingle deck. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

If Barnes wanted to eliminate the perception that he's unfairly using his membership on the board to give himself a leg up over other inspectors in Kansas, he should do what we did here in Washington, start the numbers somewhere else other than at #1 and then not use his board standing as fluff on his website. Our numbers start at #201 here and we haven't gone out and openly publicized that fact. We're required to have the words "Licensed Home Inspector," plus our license number, on our business cards and all documents related to a home inspection now. I didn't want to throw away about 500 cards; so I've been writing that information on the back of my cards as I hand them out. The other day I got a chuckle when I quickly wrote my number on my card, handed it to a realtor and the realtor asked me if I knew who the guy carrying license #1 was. "Nope, can't say that I do," I answered. Later, I imagined him back at his office calling around to other realtors and inspectors, or maybe even DOL, trying to find out who inspector #1 was. The job he does should do Barnes' talking for him. Perhaps his position and the bragging compensates for less-than-stellar capabilities that heretofore prevented him from garnering sufficient referrals. A real pro with cajones wouldn't need to brag and inflate himself in order to get the work. Tsk. Just my curmudgeonly opinion, worth the price charged. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Well she pushed my button with one of my pet peeves; using "loose" when she meant "lose". One expects better from a "writer." ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Jeez Scott, You don't want to come house shopping out here - you'll see little s**t boxes with more hefty price tags than that covered with vinyl. The worst of the waviness is on the gable end wall above the ceilings of the second floor. Were the gable end walls sheathed or was the vinyl simply tacked over a layer of WRB onto the gable end wall studs. Bet it gets pretty hot in there in the summer. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I should have commented on the condition. Shingles can easily last at least two or three times as long as a shake roof that received the same amount (or sees the same lack of) maintenance. Some idjit's been on that roof blasting away with a pressure washer and had stripped a lot of those shingles so badly that they're now paper thin below the butts. That roof is a good example why I think we home inspectors should be issued hunting licenses and be allowed to bag our limit of folks using pressure washers to clean roofs. I can see Les now, careening down the street on the way to the taxidermist with some Larry the Cable Guy type strapped across the hood of his truck. [] ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

In this article from NaplesNews.com, the online version of the Naples Daily News, a veteran home inspector tells consumers when it's not necessary to hire a home inspector. To read the article, click here.

Looks like shingles to me; not shakes. To thin and too consistent in thickness. The lack of underlayment woven into those courses is a dead giveaway. As for the venting method, most squirrels and rats would call those grand entrances and most crows would call them deposit boxes. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I know a guy who did these for more than ten years; he may or may not agree that OSB doesn't perform well under this stuff. I think his experience is probably more telling than anything else we could find in print. I'll see if I can't get him to weigh in on this thread. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Like fleas on a stray dog. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Mongo, Chad's response is a link (notice the color?). It will take you to a complete explanation of what a bank barn is and why. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Sure, why not? It's used for roof decks all the time. There's not a whole lot of difference between a roof deck and that balcony deck, no? OT - OF!!! M.

Isn't Extech a Flir subsidiery? OT - OF!!! M.

Why did the code require the TR valve in the plumbing system in the 1970 and 1980's anyway? My 1975 split level has both valves? I don't think it did. If you look at the valve mounted high in the system, you'll probably discover that it's a TPR valve and that it's blow-off pressure is 125 pounds, not the 150 that is installed on the water heater. It seems to be the way local plumbers figured out how to prevent the system from spewing water into basements around here. First, they install a 150 pound TPR valve on the tank and then end the pipe near the floor. Then they install a second valve - that blows off at 125 pounds - high up on the line with the discharge line to the outside. I've seen it hundreds of times and it's always in a place where there's no way to plumb the discharge line from the tank TPR outside without incorrectly configuring the pipe so it slopes back toward the tank. Obviously, the idea is that the one high up on the line will release long before pressure in the system reaches the set point for the valve on the tank. Get a flashlight and look closely at the tag on the upper valve on your setup. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Here's the latest B.C. chatter about this. OT - OF!!! M.

Editor’s Note: This is an actual response letter from a claims manger to a “frivolousâ€