hausdok

Annnnnnnnd, They're Off!! Click Here OT - OF!!! M.

Celia Williams-26 Feb 2009 Govt report says every home built in past 10 years at risk. Thousands of Wakatipu homes built in the last 10 years could be rotting from the inside out – despite officially meeting building standards. Homes, buildings and alterations undertaken between 1998 and 2008 that have been issued a Code Compliance Certificate may not be safe from the leaky homes syndrome. That’s because the vetting process might not have been done properly. A Department of Building & Housing report has found the regulatory agents for Queenstown Lakes District Council – CivicCorp and latterly Lakes Environmental – didn’t properly inspect weathertightness standards on buildings constructed within that period. And according to LE figures, it means about 11,000 consents granted for buildings and alterations – including 4300 new houses – could be at risk. To read more in the Queenstown Scene, click here.

Whoa! This topic has really stirred up a beehive in Canada. Folks up there are wound up on both sides of this issue. Some are even calling it a "socialist tax" and a welfare program for the energy auditors. Check out these stories: Pro Con Pro Con Pro Con. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Nah, Didn't need the instructions, just the photo to see that it was a sh*t job. I think that a lawyer would pay good money for a list of the houses that this framer has done in the past. [] ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Steve, Can you tell us exactly what they'd done that was wrong and do you know, since they've changed the manual, if this improper technique is the way they've been teaching people to do it? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Brandon hit it right on the head. Back when I was a franchisee we had a guy who came onto the franchise intranet forum one time and told folks about how he was hiring a second guy 'cuz he was averaging 5-6 inspections a day on his own and couldn't keep up with his business. Well, some of the guys, including me, nuked him pretty hard but he didn't seem to care. He had been a marketing guru for Dairy Queen for 25 years or so before he'd gotten into the home inspection business. He had no experience in construction at all when he got into the business but he was a whiz at going into reel tour offices, putting on talks, and schmoozing them for their business. He was very careful to cultivate the idea in the minds of all reel tours that he considered them his clients too and that they didn't have to worry about him killing their deals. That was the marketing line that the franchise taught but for most of us it didn't sit very well and we weren't very good at marketing at all; not this guy - he was a whiz at it. When asked whether he was concerned about liability, he answered that stats showed that only 1% of inspections ever resulted in an actual lawsuit and that he was making enough that it was easier for him to give someone a refund or reach a case settlement with them for a few thousand than to worry about whether or not he would get sued. Once, I was inspecting a house in what is his marketing area and the owner left a report of his out in the open on a table. I assumed that the homeowner wanted me to see it or he wouldn't have left it out like that, so I perused it. It was full of the stock boilerplate that came with the franchise's program and some of it was so wrong that it was silly. For instance; there was one comment in the report about how there were some shelves built into the walls of the crawlspace that were rotting and should be removed (stock boilerplate comment) - the problem was that the crawl was barely 2ft. deep and half of the barrier was under water and there weren't any shelves anywhere. Another time, right after I sold my franchise and while I was doing light contract work in Seattle while I waited out the non-compete period, I was asked to check out some water stains on the ceiling of a house and figure out why water was leaking into a basement. Well, the water stains were from a rooftop deck with leaking windows and no flashings at the perimeter that was leaking into the house (I got about a weeks worth of work out of that) and in the basement the water running across the floor was coming from the crawlspace and was due to improper exterior drainage and leaking downspout receivers (Fixed it in a few hours.). When I asked the owner if he'd had an inspection he said that he had and he named this same guy. Worse, he said that they'd found all sorts of problems right after moving into the home and had called this guy and he's spent two weeks dinking around their house repairing stuff that they'd found wrong. In the end, they said that they just quit calling him 'cuz it was clear to them that he'd been incompetent and they didn't want to get mixed up in any lawsuits or anything ugly like that. As far as I know, he's still inspecting the same way and his attitude hasn't changed 10 years later. Yesterday I had lunch with a 20-year inspector who told me that he might have to pull the plug soon and go on social security; yet, there are $200 (any size home) guys running around here doing inspections in 1-1/2 to 2 hours that can't keep up with all of the work that's being referred to them. Until consumers realize how stupid it is to always go with the guy referred by their reel tour, or they realize that hiring the cheapest guy around it liable to eventually cost them the price of a Lexus in missed stuff, things aren't liable to change very soon. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Depends on how you are regulated and whether the folks that have regulated you consider an energy audit "working" on a home that you've inspected. We've put in place rules here that will prevent someone from working on a home for a year after they inspect it but these rules won't prohibit someone from performing additional "inspections" on a home. The audit is essentially an energy "inspection," if the rules allow an inspector to do an audit but prohibit the inspector from doing the work that's recommended under the audit there really isn't any conflict. Our rules here prevent an inspector from doing anything other than inspections for at least a year after the inspection. However, a fellow could do an audit and it would not be a conflict of interest if the homeowner ignored those recommendations for months and then decided a year later to hire the same guy to do the work necessary to tighten up the house. Under this new law, the audits are done by sellers, not buyers, so it should create an additional revenue stream for home inspectors that want to get into the business of audits. I think that if lots of home inspection companies were to begin doing audits as an extra service that this might be a way to encourage more seller's inspections. However, there's also a downside to that: I also think that making the audit mandatory and seeing large numbers of home inspectors doing them has the potential to decimate the ranks of experienced/qualified inspectors, because it will eventually lead to the market being led by low ballers that will roll the audit into a home inspection and will charge the same price as an ordinary home inspection for the combined service as a way to get a leg up on their competition. Once audits become mainstream and the reel tours start telling their clients that a home inspection is going to include an energy audit, folks aren't going to want to pay extra for an audit and that means that sensible businessmen aren't really going to want to get involved with them because it means they have to do more work for less profit in order to compete. It's great for the consumer but in this business, where profit margins aren't really that high anyway, it could be devastating. The audit is a very specialized inspection and shouldn't be rolled into the normal inspection without adding substantial extra cost to the inspection. I think we all recognize that but it's going to be next-to-impossible to prevent low-ballers from coming in and doing a twofer for the same price as a sensible businessperson would charge for just a home inspection. The government subsidy is fine - it's certain to encourage some folks to get energy audits that normally wouldn't have considered it, but making it mandatory? Are there going to be specific rules that state what the minimum amount of work and reporting is required? If so, will that amount of on-site work and admin work make it impossible for even a low-baller to survive by doing a twofer at a regular home inspection price or is this going to breed more hurried inspections and sloppiness? Hell, we've had a situation here since 1991 when the pest guys pushed through a law that made all home inspectors pest inspectors by default. People here are now so used to getting a pest inspection thrown in with their regular inspection, for a price that's equivalent to what folks pay for a regular inspection in other states, that they bristle at the idea that inspectors think consumer should pay extra for a pest inspection. It's the reel tours that perpetuate it mostly - what a wonderful world it would be if reel tours could be prohibited from giving any advice at all about home inspectors other than to recommend their clients hire an inspector. A new law is about to kick in here that will separate home inspections from pest inspections once again. We could finally get the two services separated once again; but we won't, because many inspectors here are going to perpetuate this system by keeping their pest licenses and continuing to charge a single fee for the combined inspection that is still only going to be equivalent to what inspectors are getting in other states for the home inspection alone. They'll market themselves that way to the reel tours and the reel tours will turn around and continue to tell their clients that they should expect to pay about $300 for an inspection and that it will include a pest inspection. That's going to keep overall fees here very low compared to where they should be. So, now we have the green movement talking about energy audits as a part of the home inspection and I can see where this could easily become one more situation where before too long the low ballers and the reel tours will have folks here convinced that they can expect even more services without paying additional fees. I think it's a question of education, and commitment. We need to begin educating all inspectors about how low-balling drives the overall price of their services into the toilet, even while the price of other services goes up, and how charging extra for extra services will result in a market where they are making more money for doing less work. Then we need inspectors to commit to the idea of doing more thorough inspections that will ultimately help to reduce their liability and make it easier to raise their prices in the future when it's necessary. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

More on this topic at LawyersandSettlements.com. (Duh, do you think?)

Kate Hammer - February 25, 2009 In the wake of a new municipal land-transfer tax and unmoored by a sinking economy, Toronto real estate agents are bracing for a new storm on the legislative horizon: Mandatory energy audits for home sales. Ontario Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman's proposed Green Energy Act, which was introduced to the Ontario legislature Monday, contains loosely defined "mandatory conservation and energy efficiency practices" that would cost home sellers about $300. But with homes lingering on a stagnating market, and average sale prices dropping throughout the GTA, even the distant possibility of one more fee or one more bureaucratic obstacle, leaves real estate agents feeling seasick. To read the entire article at the GlobeandMail.com, click here.

Stuart Laidlaw, Staff Reporter - TheStar.com Convincing people to leave high-paying jobs in the construction industry to instead wander through older homes looking for possible retrofits was a tough sell during the boom years. Not any more. In fact, home energy auditors bracing for an eight-fold increase in business in coming years, thanks to new rules requiring that all houses being sold get such an inspection, are recruiting some of those hurt by the economic downturn. "I am very excited about this. We have a real opportunity to create some green-collar jobs, if I can call them that," says Vladan Veljovic, president of Greensaver, one of Ontario's oldest energy auditing firms. To read more at The Star.com, click here.

Q. Before we bought our home, we hired a home inspector, but he didn't report any of the major problems in the house. Now we have to repair the plumbing, the electrical wiring, and the roof. When he did the inspection, he said everything was OK, but he was just lying, and we think he may have gotten a big tip from the seller or the agent. He was supposed to be working for us. Why would a home inspector do business this way? A. To assume that a home inspector took a bribe is a big jump. The read more of Stone's response in the Chicago Daily Herald, click here.

Not to worry, the Washington State Home Inspectors Advisory Licensing Board covered it in the SOP. "The Inspector will: (h) Report on any circuit breaker panel or subpanel known within the home inspection profession to have safety concerns." This way it doesn't depend on electricians at all - strictly what's known within the profession. I'd say that covers Zinsco and FPE panels sufficiently; and later, if another brand becomes problematic, that brand or brands as well. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I used to get those heavy weight nitrile gloves at auto parts stores and they seemed to hold up really well. Still use them when I remember to stop by and pick up a box. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, Speaking of historic homes, for those who don't know about , HistoricHomes.com is definitely worth a visit. I've noticed that prices on some of the homes over there have dropped dramatically in the last few months. I don't know whether the example below has had the price lowered or not, but it's in John Ghent's neck of the woods and at 284 years old you'd expect it to priced far higher in Connecticutt. http://www.historicproperties.com/detai ... y=nepla010 ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Here's more on this issue - Ed. --------------------------------------------------------------- By ED BALDRIDGE - ed.baldridge@newssun.com SEBRING -- Mary and Ryan Willis are newlyweds who had a dream of their own home. A nice yard, a patio where they could share time together, enjoy their growing careers and raise two well-behaved cats. In short, a place to grow old together. And they thought they had that until a month ago. That's when they discovered that the drywall in their house was defective. Now, they may have to tear their dream home apart and start over. To read the rest of the article in the NewsSun.com, click here.

Yeah, I thought so too but I'd still like more info. We see whole condos built out here with gypsum board incorporated into exterior cladding and roofs as a means to control flame spread. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Imagine the amount of condensation they're liable to get once all of those units are occupied and more people start pumping moisture into the interior of that structure. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

How about an explanation of the shot to get us oriented? It looks like the underside of a roof deck but it's hard to tell without an establishing shot. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

It could just be where the water table level is in that area. Where my mother used to live there was a very high water table and everyone had those spike well points that John talked about and used them to water their lawns. There's nothing wrong with having a high water table as long as the house was built with that in mind, as long as the house is on the right type of soil, and as long as it's not going to rise further and end up inside your home whenever you have some really heavy rains. Check with your county; they should have hydrological (I think that's the term) survey maps that will show you where underground streams and aquafirs are in your area. If you discover that you are over an aquafir and it worries you, consider getting a geotechnical engineer out to help you figure out whether there's anything you need to be concerned about. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

The house is obviously built into a hillside so there's absolutely no need for a pump it should be draining by gravity. That's a lot of water; unless there's an aquafir there that's really close to the surface, I bet the perimeter drain is broken somewhere on the uphill end and is dumping water into that crawl. If so, and they were discharging the sump into the perimeter drain it was simply coming back in. They need to get their money back 'cuz it looks like the guy that put in all that pipe just took their money for putting in drains to nowhere. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yeah, I think you're right. A new high rise like that needs some kind of air exchange system. Without it, you're trapping moisture being given off by hundreds of people. I normally find something incorporated into the ductwork of the heat pump system with a timer on it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

By Eric Eyre - Staff writer, The Charleston Gazette When Sam Wood inspects a home, he routinely checks for roof leaks, unstable foundations and rotted floor joists. Last week, he added another option to his inspection arsenal: methamphetamine testing. Wood, owner of Advantage Home & Environment Inspections in South Charleston, recently purchased a meth scanner after attending a home inspection conference in Orlando, Fla. The hand-held CDEX ID2 Meth Scanner uses ultraviolet light to identify even trace amounts of the illegal drug within seconds. "We had gotten calls from people who ask, 'Can you test for meth or do you know someone who cleans up meth?'" Wood said. "I saw the meth scanner as being a real quick and easy testing process. It's non-intrusive. I don't have to touch any surfaces." The scanner is pricey - $4,990. But Wood predicts he'll find many uses for it. To read the rest of the article in the Charleston Gazette, click here.

Hi Rob, Not if you read the latest version of the model codes but you need to check with the municipality. Even if they don't require it, it won't hurt to suggest that they add a self-closing hinges and gaskets as an extra preventive safety measure. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, That's certainly a possibility but what type of air change system is in place to replace that moisture-laden interior air? As tight as new buildings are today, one doesn't find them built very often anymore without some automated way of replacing that air. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi James, There's already R12 in these walls. Won't that interfere with the foam when you try to fill the wall cavity? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike