hausdok

Sounds like a money maker, Kurt. When will you be done writing it? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Not sure I understand the question; since you and I and everyone else reading this are already doing just that. Don't believe me? Hire one of the mold scammers to come in and take tape lift samples off your bedroom walls. Betcha he gets a hit. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I think one could probably go into the home of any of these "mold inspectors" and take tape lift samples off their clothing and the interior of the home, and then take samples of the air and swabs of every one of their children's and their spouse's nostrils and still come away with the same kinds of spore counts that they are always reporting to folks as "toxic mold." I'm so sick of hearing about this urban myth. It's been a full fifteen years. If I had a time machine, I'd travel back to 1998 Texas and kick that moron, Ms. Ballard, square in the ass for not bothering to call a plumber when she should have 'cuz it was her bullsh*t that set this whole hoax off. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Jeez, How many times must this be repeated here. Penicillium, Aspirgillis and Stachybotrys are ubiquitous in the air we breath, in the air we've breathed our entire life, and will be in the air we breath until the day we are planted. The first mistake the O.P. made was hiring a "licensed mold inspector" because there is no such thing. Home inspectors that do mold inspections are banking on the fact that you have bought into the media pablum that there is such a thing as "toxic" mold. They are no more qualified to give you an opinion about mold than they are to analyze a brain scan. They come in, take samples, send them off to the lab and then they tell you you've got to be worried and stick a bunch of meaningless numbers under your nose and go back home and snicker about how gullible you were to pay them so much money for something that you already know - that the air is full of all sorts of spore. Clean the stuff up and stop being such a Chicken Little - unless you've already got a compromised immune system or are already hyper sensitive to dust and mold spore that stuff in the bath will have no effect on you. The next time you want to throw $300 bucks down the toilet, shoot me a PM and I'll send you my address so you can send it here. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, A few weeks ago someone posted a link to the Popular Mechanics archive. I just did a search of that archive for GE Central Air Conditioners and in the February 1978 issue where there is an article about heat pumps I saw a grainy photo of a GE heat pump. Of course, it's black and white but those avacado ones look darker in black and white than the beige, I think. There is a substantial difference in the look of the cabinet. The one in Jims picture looks cruder in comparison to the one in that Popular Mechanics article so I'm inclined to think the one in Jim's picture is earlier than '78 which would put it around 72 if one is to believe the serial number decoding schemes. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I think it was made the 8th week of either '72 or '82. I know, that doesn't help much. It's especially hard too, since Trane bought GE's central air conditioning plant assets in 1982 and a year or two later that was all bought by American Standard. I think Kurt's memory of colors is about as accurate as you're going to get. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Big difference between pressure and volume. You can have a home with good to high water pressure and low volume or flow due to old pipes. Which is exactly what I said. I don't see the point of elaborating on pressure when it's not the pressure that people are concerned about as much as it is the volume of water they are getting. If they've got 3-psi but lots of volume at all of their fixtures they are happier than a pig in sh*t. If they've got 90 psi and crappy volume they are all pissed off. So I write up pressure in a neighborhood where there is barely 30 psi and everyone within a half mile has the same condition and the city says, "We don't have any money so those folks will have to wait?" I don't think so. I'm going to see if there's adequate volume to take a shower or bath and flush a toilet without scalding someone. If it's adequate that's my primary concern. If it's not adequate because the pipes are too occluded with rust, that's what I"m going to write up, 'cuz I know the city isn't going to do squat about pressure but I know that increasing volume by replacing those pipes will make the client happy again. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Scott, I agree that receptacles in a crawlspace have to be GFCI protected but a furnace does not - it is hard wired, just as it is when it's installed in a garage. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I don't. I think it makes more sense to worry about whether there is adequate water for a family's needs versus whether the pressure is optimum. What's the point? I can be in parts of seattle where the water pressure is extremely high and water volume at a sink will suck because the plumbing is so badly occluded from rust. I can be in another neighborhood where an old house in a neighborhood with less than 40psi (as identified by the color of the fire hydrant caps) has phenomenal volume because of a nice large and new supply pipe to the house and newer pipes that allow full flow of water. Pressure doesn't mean a lot of your pipes are completely screwed up. Without installing a booster pump inboard of the city, which can you fix if you are on a muni water supply? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike P.S. In nearly 17 years I've only seen two pressure booster pumps. One was in a house in the city and another was at a rural property way out beyond Marysville where they had their own well pump. I could be wrong, 'cuz I don't deal with well pumps a lot, but it seemed to me like that pressure pump was causing the well pump to cavitate. Referred 'em to a well guy for a more in-depth look at their entire system.

Yeah, that's right to a point; but saying they need to be replaced? He's pushing the credibility envelope there. Someday he's going to get called out by a builder, end up in court and then a siding manufacturer's tech rep is going to be called in by the other side as a witness and the tech rep will say something like, "Yeah, we liked those pics so we borrowed them from so-and-so. Sure, sloped flashings work better, but the truth is we don' t have any data anywhere to prove that flat flashings aren't working. We'll still honor the warranty on that product." Then he'll walk out with so much egg on his face he'll looks like a Denver Omellete with it's head stuck up it's ass. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Jim, lets see the excerpt from the report where it says to replace the flashing.The flashing was lifted up to a 1/4" the wrong direction at places. Download Attachment: AlVT020413 060.jpg 194.7?KB At no place did the report say to replace this- It said consult a siding contractor for a further evaluation to determine their opinion for repairs or replacement. The buyer requested the seller to fix all lifted and negatively sloped flashing- I just gave them the information, they made the judgement call to request it be replaced. If the seller didn't want to fix it, they should not have agreed to fix it in the repair addendum. If you feel this is not a problem or issue, keep neglecting to put it in your reports. I'll continue to put it in mine. Hmm, Fair enough, Except you were wrong. That's Hardiplank. Please show me in the Hardiplank installation instructions, or in the Hardiplank Best Practices - Installation guide where it specifically states that flashings must slope downward. I'm not talking about JLC's nice drawings - I'm talking about the quotable text in the instructions that state that the flashings must "slope" because whenever I've called James Hardie to discuss a technical point about their product they've pointed out to me that it's their language that counts and that they've borrowed those drawings from JLC, which they've acknowledged in writing on the instructions. Also, please show me in the IRC where it says that flashings must "slope". I've never been able to find it. I agree, the flashing in the photo is sloppy work and it is wrong - but it's wrong only because that gap between the bottom edge of the siding and the flashing is caulked - not because it slopes the wrong way. The siding is not supposed to be caulked to the flashing. That you can find in the Hardie literature - you will not find anything that says those flashings must slope. The requirement is for flashings period; and the flashing to siding joint is supposed to be 1/4 inch wide and left uncaulked. The remedy isn't to punt it to a siding contractor for his opinion. What's the siding contractor going to say if he's installed siding on 500 houses exactly the way as shown in that photo? How does that kind of punt help the client? The remedy is to have some schlub who's halfway competent cut away the caulk above the flashing so that any water behind the siding above that fixture mounting block is able to drain to the exterior. If he has half a lick of sense, since there aren't any end dams on that piece of flashing, it would be prudent for him/her to simply leave a little bit of that caulk at either end of that flashing intact - it doesn't have to be much; maybe a 3/8-inch - so water can't drain off the ends into the area behind the claps. That would be a common sense call within reason that would do the client some good. This isn't the medical profession or the legal profession where you can go back and pull up tons of precedent or walk into a room filled with walls of books with procedures set in stone and look up an answer. Hell, half the texts that are quoted in this business are written by home inspectors based on nothing more than their own experiences and quirks; and many of them have signficant errors. It's not the engineering profession where you can base your opinion on solid engineering principles that have been proven again and again over hundreds and thousands of years - it's the home inspection profession where lots of stuff that gets parroted comes from the net or from urban myths or from magazine articles written by builders or contractors based on that person's experience but often without solid references that say "this is the way it shall be." It's a profession where anal retentive folks who are unable to hear the voices of the more experienced around them telling them to use a little bit of common sense, tend to injure their own credibility. You have to pick your battles in this business. If you're going to stand on something it should be something that's going to make a significant impact as far as protecting the client and your own credibility. Picking at nits that don't exist because you want to appear smarter than the guy who installed something only brands you as a horses ass with teeth. Think about it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Simple answer, no. Think about when one is installed in an unfinished garage. The receptacles in the garage are GFCI protected but not the furnace. It's the same thing. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

How could anyone possibly argue that this is an OK install? Where does it say anywhere in any code that it's OK to pinch a power cord between a box and a cover? It's a simple choice; either hard wire it with the proper materials or put a plug on the end of that cord and install a receptacle so that it can be plugged/unplugged. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Click to Enlarge 24.48?KB Click to Enlarge 27.5 KB Click to Enlarge 28.14?KB Click to Enlarge 19.08?KB Click to Enlarge 18.44?KB Click to Enlarge 69.05?KB Click to Enlarge 56.95?KB

It's still possible to do it. There was an article years ago in either FHB or JLC that showed various techniquest for retroactively reinforcing a CMU foundation and tying it to the footings. It's just a question of whether they'd want to do it. As far as reporting it; what would you report and to whom? OT - OF!!! M.

Regulary done around here. They cast pressure-treaeted battens on 16-inch centers into the outside face of the wall so that they can cover a high foundation wall with horizontal siding. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yep, Tell 'em about the bolts and then point out that, in addition to the lack of foundation bolts, they'll have trouble getting earthquake insurance with some companies if the home isn't retrofitted with seismic bracing. Then recommend they consider having it done. Kills two birds with one stone. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Does that go for anything that's self-evident? How about a broken window or tile falling off the wall at a tub surround? They're certainly self-evident. I know the process is different in your area, but here, a buyer can't have an inspection done before they enter into an Agreement of Sale (and put down a hefty deposit). Everything goes into the report, self-evident or not. The buyer may need it in the report in order to negotiate. It's pretty simple. The buyer knew the carpet was nasty when he/she made an offer. The seller knew it when putting it on the market. They didn't need to hire me to tell them about it. A broken window is not interior - it's part of the exterior envelope. That goes in the exterior section. Tiles falling off would be mentioned; but only because it you've got tiles falling off you've probably got something else going on behind the tile that the client needs to know about. That's stuff they need to know. I've had clients say, "We already know that we need to redo the tub surround, so you don't have to report that," and I ended up explaining to them that there was probably more going on behind that bad tile than just loose tiles that they needed to know about. Bottom line, they hire us to tell them about stuff they probably don't have the ability or experience to figure out on their own. Yeah, they need to compile a list for themselves for negotiation but where in your SOP does it say that you are responsible for making sure they include every nicklel and dime thing they can dream up to negotiate? Answer - nowhere. I'll even bet there's something in there that says the inspection is not intended to be a tool for negotiation. Inspect and report on stuff that's necessary to be inspected and reported about - not needless stuff that's just adding bulk to the report. Just my opinion - worth the price charged. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

$300 value? That was the average price for a home inspection more than a decade ago. Do they only walk around the exterior? What about the rest of the inspection? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I limit interior descriptions to what covers the floors, types of cabinetry and countertops, types of doors, types of wall and ceiling coverings and types of windows. I don't describe individual rooms other than to remark about the number of kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms. Unless something is wrong in a room, nobody really cares. If something wrong in a particular room fits in the plumbing, hvac, or electrical section, that's where the comment about the issue goes. The only thing I put in the interior section is interior-related stuff that's more than fair wear and tear - missing doors, doors falling off their hinges, plaster delaminating or keyway failure, drywall falling down, cabinets falling off the wall or destroyed, etc.. Never comment about carpet condition. Don't care. Why would I waste space in a report to document something that's self evident and doesn't require a home inspector to investigate in order to know what's going on there? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

It's an absolutely toothless law. It provides for penalties (Fine and Jail time) for violations of certain provisions but those provisions involve misrepresentation of one's status as a member of a national home inspector association or the failure to include certain weasel clauses in the report that tell the client essentially, "Hey, nothing is guaranteed here. If you want to be surer, hire independent experts and not a home inspector." It looks like whoever wrote it was more interested in protecting their turf by initially insisting that someone be a member of a certain association and they built lots of escape clauses into it for themselves. Later it was amended to be more inclusive of other associations but the escape clauses remain and it looks like you get in more trouble for not including the escape clauses in the report than you will for not telling the truth. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

You can build a perimeter foundation for a dome with a stepped/reinforced outer lip that encloses the sill at the base of the wall and prevents the bottom of the walls from spreading and provides the support needed to hold the dome up. You don't need to encase the walls. This is not the best place for this kind of discussion. We are home inspectors - not engineers. This belongs on an engineers forum. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

The AC system was probably added years after the home was built and that breaker spent most of it's time bouncing around in the back of the electrician's van before he pulled it out of his bucket of spare breakers and used it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

If they are only contemplating the possibility that they might one day convert that space, or if they know they will but it's not going to happen for many years, I think air sealing and extra insulation is a good choice for now. They'll end up with a snug home and they'll have a good place for some dry storage. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I don't put it in the report. I'll usually mention it - particularly if it's a 90 year old home and I find an interesting type of shingle or shake under there. Wish I'd been taking pictures bach then - I remember a house I did my first year in this gig where I went up into the attic and looked down on three separate additions with three different roofs. They'd expanded the house again and again and finally put a huge roof over the top of all of those changes. Climbing around that attic was like exploring Carlsbad caverns - all nooks and crannies - old construction techniquest and products. Very bizarre to look down upon that from the uppermost attic. I've never seen it be a ventilation issue as long as the bottom of the slope is opened up to allow airflow from old attic to new. I don't believe it causes a fire to spread any faster. Hell, if there's a fire in there I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference, if any. Those are architectural grade asphalt shingles. Later roof so it's probably Class A fire rated isn't it? The framing and roof deck will burn faster. I think we've got bigger fish to fry than imagining something terrible is going to happen 'cuz there's a roof in there. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

North slope, No sunlight. The underside of the deck stays cool from October to May regardless of how sunny it is outside. Fungi abides. Did you check the whole house air change timer? Were they even using it? If they were, were they running the system long enough to be effective? Look behind the dial. They often look fine but they aren't working 'cuz the springs are broken (see photo below from a 4 year old home). Click to Enlarge 28.95 KB Without anything removing the moisture from the house, it migrates by diffusion into the attic and ends up condensing on the cool underside of the north slope. The fungi was already there; it just needed enough moisture to sustain it and allow the spores to multiply faster than they die off - something they can't normally do on the south and west slopes, and sometimes the east slope, 'cuz those sides get enough sunlight to stay warm enough to evaporate the moisture. Ten years ago we'd have told them to treat it with some Cuprinol and go on with their lives. Now the only safe (for your livelihood) thing to do to avoid the "toxic mold" crazies from talking folks into suing you is to recommend they get it professionally abated or the subject will come up again when they go to sell the home. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike