hausdok

Hi, Not sure that sandblasting would be a good idea. I remember back in 1983 when a fire severely damaged the PMO at Ft. Devens they blasted the old brick of the exterior to clean it using buckwheat hulls instead of sand so that they wouldn't damage the 60 year old brick. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yes, it's a requirement in the model code; but whether the local juridiction has waived that requirement and allows it is a question for the local AHJ. If you ask that question, make sure that you request copies of the local juridiction's amended code requirements. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I see those occasionally. They're often copper-plated steel and the copper plating just sort of dissolves and rust is all that's left. OT - OF!!! M.

Shoot me an email address to reply to - I'm too lazy to look it up. Send to hausdok@msn.com OT - OF!!! M.

It sounds like it could be sulfur stains where condensing flue gases have permeated the mortar and brickwork and caused the paint on the side of the chimney to blister. Rain could be causing the sulfur to streak the brickwork. Still, with that description there's not much to work with. You really need to work on how you describe things when you write them up; if we're having a hard time figuring out what you're describing, imagine the difficulty that some single mom who is a first time home buyer is going to have. Your description needs to convey an immediately and easily understood image of the issue in the mind of your reader. Here's an exercise - take those two posts you wrote above and try and say the same thing with half the words in such a way that even a kid reading it could draw an accurate representation of it on a piece of paper. You don't have to post that here; just ask you significant other and/or friends or relatives to read it and then to tell you what they're seeing in their mind's eye. Words are what we do; get them wrong and later on, if something goes wrong with a home and you end up in court, an inaccurate description of what the home and the issue is could be what defeats you. I won't kid you, it's tough for an adult to re-learn this stuff, so you're going to have to really work on it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

A steep roof like that will cause winds to spill and downdraft sharply as they cross the ridge; it's one of the reason that pilots are taught not to fly too close to the downwind sides of the crests of mountains. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Yes, it is possible to exclude it under the SOP if it's not a required item or if there are extenuating circumstances that prevent you from inspecting for it. For instance, an inspector can exclude a roof if the roof is too slick and wet to go up on and inspect, because an inspector isn't required to do anything that the inspector feels places him/her in danger. However, she is trying to make it a requirement to look for mold as part of the routine; so, short of not being able to see into the walls, she means everywhere else we're looking. The issue isn't so much that we should report something we suspect; it's placing an expectation in the minds of our clients that we must inspect for and find mold and that if we don't report any suspected mold the home is clear of all mold - which would be absolutely untrue in 100% of the cases 24/7/365 because mold is always there - you're breating it this second. Inspectors get bit on this stuff when a homeowner find something after the inpspection and gets the idea that the inspector screwed up and then believes the media hype that his brain will turn to putty or some such nonsense after being exposed to it. Trying to convince the homeowner after the fact that the stuff really wasn't there at the time of the inspection is an uphill battle unless they were with you to know that it wasn't there. If they were, then they'd have no reason to call you, no? So, they find something and now they think that they've got a cause of action; they pick up a phone and call their local bloodsucking member of the bar and the next thing you know the bloodsucker is threatening lawsuit unless we cough up big bucks. I just think that there really isn't any way that we can do this without opening ourselves up to a can of worms that'll turn to snakes and bite us so bad that we end up losing our livelihood because of a bunch of overblown media hype. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Those look like they might be more than 3ft. above the roofline - aren't those puppies supposed to be supported by guy wires when they're more than 3ft. above the roof (maybe it's 4ft. - I can't recall off the top of my head. I'm thinking some kind of mechanical anti-backdraft damper is needed on that guy. It slams shut when the wind gusts up, but seconds later when the gust drops off, it swings open and lets the exhaust out. If they don't make such a turkey, perhaps a power vent up in the attic that's interlocked to the furnace. Furnace comes on, the power vent comes on and prevents backdrafting. Furnace shuts down, power vent goes off; I know they make those 'cuz I've seen them before. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Well, not to be a sourpuss but I think that

Thermo-Pride does the same thing. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Rich, Isn't this the actual regulation? OT - OF!!! M.

NORTH VANCOUVER, BC (Marketwire - Feb. 2, 2009) The BC Institute of Property Inspectors is pleased to support the long awaited licensing requirement for home inspectors in BC that was announced by the Solicitor General's office on January 30. It answers years of lobbying by BCIPI and others to raise standards for inspectors in BC. It is a good first step to improve the level of service provided by BC inspectors. We thank Solicitor General John van Dongen for his efforts bringing in this legislation. The new requirements will help protect the public interest by preventing somebody with no experience in the industry just "buying a flashlight and business cards" and going out providing inferior home inspection services. It will also prevent those with specialized training in only one particular building component or system offering services as a home inspector. It is now very important for the consumer to understand that there will be three different sets of standards governing home inspectors and not all are created equally. Currently BCIPI is the only organizations that we know of requiring its new inspectors to pass a series of supervised inspections before allowing them to offer services directly to the public. The BCIPI (ASTTBC) certification requirements can be reviewed here. You can view the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors - BC Branch practise requirements here. The National Certification Program practise requirements can be viewed here. Should you have any questions and or concerns and would like to provide feedback, please contact us at secretary@bcipi.net or 778-688-5807. For further information: BC Institute of Property Inspectors (BCIPI) website: http://bcipi.net Switchboard: (604) 585-2770 Fax: (604) 585-2790 Certifying Body: Applied Science Technologists & Technicians of British Columbia (ASTTBC) website: http://www.asttbc.com/registration/tech ... ction.php/

Aw, come on, Charley. I was just joshin' with 'im. OT - OF!!! M.

That's a fart that stains your drawers, of course. Jeez, these younguns don't know nothin' ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Harold, Obviously you get it; I just wish more people learning about this would focus on getting it instead of inserting their own personal bias toward the advisory board into the dialog. For instance, on another message board a fellow is pontificating about the reasons why the Advisory Licensing Board wrote certain things into the SOP and stating that they were done to reinstall ways to discourage their competition after the WDO rules that kept inspectors from getting into the profession unless they were pest inspectors was eliminated. What a joke - can you say "horses ass with teeth?" Three of the members of that board were on the coalition that prevented two previous versions of licensing with mold written into them from making it to the floor and I know for a fact that four of the seven members on the board voted in WHILAG, as did the overwhelming majority of WHILAG members, to eliminate the requirement for a pest license from the rules for home inspectors. Even the sponsor's draft for the very last bill that eventually was passed into law, despite it having been defeated two previous times, had required that inspectors look for mold. The coalition members met in an emergency session on a Sunday afternoon and completely parsed that bill proposal, and removed any reference to mold from it. Then they added in online training before sending the marked-up draft back to the bills sponsor. When the sponsor sent it back again for their final review, the mold wasn't there but she'd removed the online training. At that point, after defeating her two previous bills, getting 100% inspectors on the board instead of the realtors, engineers and appraisers she wanted on the board, and getting her to finally agree to listen to home inspectors by consulting them, they'd agreed that it was as good a bill as they'd get from her, and, since it did minimal harm to inspectors and got us away from WSDA, the endorsed it without the online training because it didn't have any mold stuff in it; that's what was passed into law. Then, when the advisory board (Note that it is an advisory board and has not power - they only advise department of licensing and the Director DOL can do whatever he wishes) then wrote the SOP, they were careful to include: A home inspection is not technically exhaustive and does not identify concealed conditions or latent defects.id="brown"> (mold hidden in walls and underneath stuff) Does not provide services that constitute the unauthorized practice of any profession that requires a special license when the inspector does not hold that licenseid="brown">.(industrial hygienists who are trained in how to deal with mold) Inspectors are not required to: (3) Report the presence of potentially hazardous plants or animals including, but not limited to, wood destroying insects or diseases harmful to humans; the presence of any environmental hazards including, but not limited to mold, toxins, carcinogens, noise, and contaminants in soil, water or air; the effectiveness of any system installed or methods utilized to control or remove suspected hazardous substances. (16) Move suspended ceiling tiles, personal property, furniture, equipment, plants, soil, snow, ice or debris. (17) Dismantle any system or component, except as explicitly required by the SOP. A preinspection agreement is mandatory and as a minimum must contain or state: A statement that the inspection does not include investigation of mold, asbestos, lead paint, water, soil, air quality or other environmental issues unless agreed to in writing in the preinspection agreement.id="brown"> Folks really need to focus on the fact that the advisory board and all opponents and proponents of licensing in this profession in this state - except for maybe those guys who are inspectors that are doing these so-called mold inspections - are dead set against any and all forms of "looking for mold" being inserted into our requirements. Get off the stick people; stop listening to nut cases and wringing your hands about how the advisory board is trying to screw everyone and sit down to your keyboards and start typing out letters to state representatives and senators opposing this goofy amendment. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

By Mike O'Handley, TIJ Editor It seems that there's some truth to that old saying about how time heals all wounds, because after more than two decades of sometimes bitter rivalry the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) and the National Association of Home Inspectors (NAHI) have established a joint task force to look into various ways that the two oldest home inspectors' organizations can work together to strengthen the profession. For those inspectors who aren't acquainted with the rivalry between ASHI and NAHI, a short history lesson is in order. The story begins around 1985- 1986 when a group of ASHI inspectors from around the country formed a committee to explore some insurance options for the association. While doing that work, some members of the committee learned that they shared common complaints with fellow committee members about the way that ASHI was being run at the time and the direction that the board of directors was taking the association. One thing led to another and before too long members of the group agreed to split from ASHI and form a new association - that association became the National Association of Home Inspectors and thus began the long rivalry between the two associations. So, when early last week I'd received a telephone call from a fellow inspector, who wanted to let other inspectors know that ASHI and NAHI were exploring the possibility of sharing some resources and might even do a joint annual conference next year, I was surprised to say the least. You see, it was around 2000 - 2001 when I suggested to the then presidents of each of these organizations that they work together and issue a joint press release condemning a somewhat questionable pay-to-play east coast marketing scheme. Though they were both against the marketing scheme, from their reactions at the time you would have thought that I'd made insulting remarks about their parentage. One gentleman's response was somewhat on the order of, "You'll see me cooperate with them when pigs fly." I was initially tempted to run with my "scoop, however, I decided that in the interest of fairness it would be best to ask both organizations directly whether the story was true, rather than fuel any speculation, so I fired off emails to the organization presidents. It was a good plan but, before the associations were able to officially respond to me, it was preempted when the owner of a well known public relations firm that's convinced its clients that they are actually members of a home inspectors "organization" broke the story on his website. True to his modus operandi, rather than verify the accuracy of the story and go with the truth, the fellow spun it as a "merger" caused by dwindling membership numbers of those organizations; I guess, for him, the fact that the membership numbers of one of those two organizations has actually been growing is too inconvenient a truth. This morning via email I learned what is really going on from Bill Richardson and David Kolesari - ASHI and NAHI Presidents respectively - and Brion Grant and Jim Turner - Immediate Past Presidents and Co-Chairs of the joint task force. The fact is that no merger has been discussed formally between the two organizations; instead, both boards of directors have agree only to establish a joint task. The email goes on to state that this can take many forms but nothing has been decided or agreed upon and that anyone that says differently is "misinformed or may have a perspective or motives that are not shared" by the two organizations. I'd sent these gentlemen a list of questions but they declined to answer them saying only that they understand why others want to know what's going on, and they fully intend for their process to be "transparent, honest and forthright, but since their joint task force hasn't even had a single meeting yet, such questions are premature. However, they did provide me with the text of the joint resolution used by their boards to establish the task force. That resolution is as follows: The Board of Directors approves establishing a joint task force (the ASHI/NAHI Joint Venture Task Force) consisting of five ASHI representatives to work with five NAHI representatives to explore the possibilities of the two organizations; sharing resources, uniting chapters, collaborating on a joint annual conference and possibly a merger. The task force will survey the memberships and review issues including finances, membership, chapters, management and legal issues, governance, and other items as appropriate. Final decisions concerning any of these projects or activities shall require the express approval of the Board of Directors of each organization. Each organization will be responsible for the expenses of their task force representatives. Any shared expenses such as survey creation, experienced merger consultant or financial auditor shall be borne by both associations on a prorated basis using membership numbers as determined on February 1st, 2009. Neither organization is responsible or liable for the acts, activities or omissions of the other. Any future joint activities (except for the described exploratory work of the task force) or possible merger shall require a follow-up written agreement.id="brown"> Regardless of whether ASHI and NAHI simply do some joint projects - kind of like the way the Lions Club and the Elks Club sometimes work together on public service projects - or they actually do decide to merge, ASHI and NAHI are likely to maintain their position at the top of the tier with reputations as the two most credible associations with the most competent inspectors in the home inspection profession. Cooperation like this can only be good thing. Hopefully, it may be a sign that the trade has finally turned a corner and is moving back toward professionalism and away from the soap operas and silliness that have permeated the profession for nearly the past decade, since hucksters, with questionable and sometimes near criminal backgrounds have sought to make the profession their sandbox with competing entities that tout membership numbers and number of website hits over professionalism as the marks of a better organization.

Another follow-up, click here. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I suppose that explains the friggin IBS. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, It might have been Sandy Hartman's article that was posted to the front page when the new law was passed here in Washington State licensing home inspectors; or it might have been something that I wrote. Here's what I suggest you do - go to the front page and click on "advanced search," then search for the keywords WHILAG and SOP. Make the range two years - I bet that will pull it up. WHILAG was a coalition that I brought together back in 2006 when an inspector here, on his own, along with a state representative, was trying to get backing for a pretty sloppy home inspector registration law. The group met to discuss that proposed law and then voted to work together to explore whether they wanted to put together their own proposal of a licensing law or simply wait for someone else to propose one. They met again the next month and voted overwhelmingly to work together to work with legislators and guide legislation rather than simply react to it when it came out. It wasn't just folks from home inspector organizations; we had pest people there and independents as well. The coalition was originally more than 35 people but as time went on folks lost interest in the process and by the end of 2007 the number participating was down to 11. They chose the NAHI SOP as a starting point after I took the SOPs from the three primary national organizations - ASHI, NAHI, AII - and the one used by the clients of Gromicko's public relations firm, usually referred to as the soap opera here, translated them into a single format and put them side-by-side for comparison. The SOP comparison was given to them at one meeting and then at the next monthly meeting they voted on which they felt was the most complete and did the best to protect both the consumer and the inspector. The vote was overwhelmingly in support of the NAHI SOP - even the guys in the group from ASHI and the soap opera voted for it. If you are interested, I can email you a copy of the SOP comparison document. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

PRLog – Jan 31, 2009 – Press Release Green Real Estate Education, a provider of educational courses in the United States for the real estate industry on green awareness will be offering their Level One introductory certification course for mortgage professionals. The company says there are numerous opportunities presented by President Obabma's Economic Stimulus Bill as it just received "thumbs up" in the House. Green Real Estate Education feels this is historic as the government is positioned to redirect the course of the nation's economy. "Our own economic stimulus is to offer our courses for under $100 and we do not allow our courses to be offered for more than $99, by our sponsors or alliance partners" says Kerry Mitchell, President of Green Real Estate Education. "It doesn't make sense to offer 'green" educational programs that agents, inspectors or mortgage professionals can not afford to register for." says Mitchell. "Many of our colleagues cannot even afford to stay in business. Most in the mortgage industry are letting their licenses expire and looking for other jobs. Most who held years of experience have never seen a real estate market where so many are suffering. Most loan officers are not renewing their web site hosting, or local licenses or not paying dues to national organizations.â€

That would be better...assuming we can get the monkeys to drop the amendment. The dumb thing is that we DO already look for visible mold, as an indicator of moisture problems. But being held responsible for all mold, mold that might not be visible or discoverable until months after the inspection, is scary. Exactly so, that's why I urge any Washington State inspector that's reading this or hears about it to get on the phone, get the word out and make folks in Olympia hear us. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Rich, That's an interesting approach but do you realize how many things one could write up that look like mold? In order to cover yourself, you'd need to write up every little thing that even resembles the stuff; dirt, smoke, pencil marks, bathroom mildew, soot, etc. and we'd still miss the stuff that's in the air. Then, because it's written into the law that one must look for it, what do you do with the situation where the stuff is discovered after the inspection in an area it wasn't written up and the homeowner wants to make an issue of it. How will we prove that it wasn't there at the time of the inspection? Example: December of 2007 I inspected a beautiful new home and found everything in the crawl clean. Four months later, I get a call from the client; he'd been in the crawl to look around and had discovered some black stuff growing on a beam. I drove over there; it turned out to be some kind of fungi that looked more like a wood blight than mold. He followed me as I inspected every corner of that crawl and didn't find anything else. I recommended he call the builder and get the builder to deal with it. The builder had it dealt with. Last November, he calls me back to help him compile a warranty punchlist - I inspected the entire crawl again and found a bunch of leopard spots growing behind the insulation on the rim joist along a whole 12ft. section of the flooring just behind the front porch. No source of moisture such as a leak or poor flashings causing it, but it's a well-ventilated crawl and there really shouldn't have been anything like that growing. It had to have been caused by condensation. I reported it to the client and I guess he and the builder are dealing with it. Now, imagine if we'd had this mold requirement in the law and the client weren't so understanding or hadn't accompanied me - I could have been sued twice by now. This stuff is a moving target - requiring us to document everyplace that it's found in a home is kind of like trying to document every place that there could possibly be lead paint or asbestos in a a 60-year old home. Personally, I think we'd be better off to have a disclaimer similar to Title X for lead where a homeowner gets an information sheet that tells them that there's mold in 100% of the air around them and that, if they're concerned about it, they should bring in an IAQ firm to go through the home for them - kind of like the warning sticker on a pack of cigarettes. That would take the monkey off our backs. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

There is no requirement for inspectors to have E & O written into the law. However, if this senator's amendment manages to get through, I'm betting that most inspectors will probably then want to get E & O; the trouble is, with this economy most probably won't be able to afford it. The trouble with this rule is that, it won't be a question of if an inspector misses something that might actually be mold in a house and doesn't report it, so much as it's going to be a question of when mold spore that couldn't possibly have been seen during the inspection develops after the inspection, the customers find it and think the inspector missed it, and the customers suddenly hear a ka-ching sound. That's why inspectors are liable to find that they'll have a hard time getting mold coverage at reasonable rates; even if they do, one claim and they're liable to be dropped by the carrier 'cuz the carrier will be afraid that lightning will strike twice. We can thank the mold cowboy inspectors who jumped on the mold is gold bandwagon in the late 1990's for helping to perpetuate the media myth of "toxic" mold. Before that time, you hardly ever heard about mold, let alone "toxic" mold. For millions of years mold wasn't considered "toxic" until Ballard vs. Farmers; since then, lots of wingnuts with their own, mostly financial, agenda, have tried to connect all sorts of goofy stuff to the presence of mold. Many of us in the business back then tried to dissuade the mold cowboys from going down that path and begged them to leave mold to the IAQ professions. They didn't listen, so now when mold shows up it is almost always the home inspector that's blamed for missing it; even if it wasn't there at the time of the inspection. One thing is certain; whenever there's one of these mold media feeding frenzies, the mold cowboys show up on TV spewing their drivel while the folks that don't sensationalize it - sensible inspectors and real scientists - usually aren't even quoted. Just when it looked like home inspectors would soon be able to take pride in being an inspector in the state again, this happened. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Pushback? I'm sorry if you feel that it's pushback, I certainly didn't intend for it to seem like that. I suppose I could use a lot of those smiley icons to try and show folks that there's no animosity going out through the keyboard but I just don't have the temperament to dink around with those for every single post I make or every paragraph of every post I make so that folks won't get their feelings hurt by the blunt way that I write. Seriously, I didn't even associate the user name with any previous posts; I was just pointing out what I felt was an inaccurate statement. Would you prefer that I preface everything that I say to everyone that I disagree with on the net, "Excuse me, I don't mean to offend, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way and think that I'm being too pushy, but,"? My memory is so bad these days that I'm able to remember who, maybe, a couple dozen users are by their user names and because they hang out here all the time; beyond that, it's just a name posting back. I rarely even bother to click on the user name and try and remember who they are when it doesn't click immediately. There are some folks in the business that I do hold some animosity for, 'cuz they should be somewhere else doing something else instead of fleecing customers and other home inspectors, but as far as I know none of them hang out here - at least not openly. I know they lurk 'cuz I have their IP addresses highlighted and I can see when they're here. You don't have to worry - you're not in that group. If I've offended, I apologize, but I've always thought I was pretty much of an equal opportunity curmudgeon and groused at everyone evenly. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT !!! Mike

They're all contaminated. There are all kinds of bugs in the water all the time, just in tiny quantities. - Jim Katen, Oregon Geez, Thanks Jim, it's not bad enough that I have to live with IBS, now you got me thinking about critters that I thought the chlorine was killing. [:-bigeyes ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike