hausdok

Doug Hansen't comment on this issue taken from Electrical Inspection of Existing Dwellings - 2001 Edition: "While not strictly required by code, the presence of anti-oxidant at all terminals would be an indication of a higher level of quality in workmanship."id="maroon"> ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Matt, Obviously, you've never read the post from the grandson of the founder of the Zinsco Company who came on here a few years ago to castigate everyone for besmirching the name of his Grandfather's company. OT - OF!!! M.

The CAHPI president is explaining to his members the reasons why CAHPI will not participate in "Consultations" that the BC government is conducting into the home inspection profession in B.C. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, That's a pretty crummy flashing job. However, besides the flashings, you have to pay attention to the crown. If you've got a cracked crown, it's easy for water to get into the brickwork and work it's way down to the roof plane and any framing that abuts the bricks. Lots of times, water will move down through a crack in the crown and folks end up gooping up the flashings with tar because they can't figure out where the water is gettin in. If I hadn't been able to look down that flue, I'd have called to have it inspected by a CSIA (Chimney Safety Institute of America - http://www.CSIA.org) sweep and to make any repairs recommended by the sweep prior to closing. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Editor's Note: The following letter from Bill Sutherland, CAHPI President, and the attached enclosures were forwarded to us by Owen Dickie, CAHPI(BC) Secretary, with a request to post it for the benefit of CAHPI members. February 5th, 2008 To the Members of CAHPI(BC): I want to begin by thanking you for your words of encouragement and support at the Quarterly General Meeting on the weekend, and through phone and e-mail contact these last couple of weeks. I agree with you that any action by the BC government to bring standards to the BC home and property inspection industry must include CAHPI(BC), and work that has already been done on this issue. In fact, at UBCM last fall, I asked the Premier if he would meet with me for precisely this reason, and he agreed, asking me to contact his office to make arrangements. In writing to his office on November 8, 2007 to set up the meeting, my note reminded him that the reason for the meeting would be to discuss the efforts necessary to ensure that the actions by the BC government, with respect to the regulation or licensing of Home Inspectors, include CAHPI ­ British Columbia and Canada#146;s largest professional Home Inspection Association ­ which is currently unable to participate given the direction and approach being taken by the BC government. Mr. Campbell's office has not yet followed through on his UBCM commitment, but I expect they will. I thank so many of you for advising me that you recently received an e-mail from a Susan Walker of Mr. Les's Ministry, asking you to participate in a consultation that Mr. Less ministry is conducting about the home inspection industry. In writing to me as the president of CAHPI(BC) on January 18, 2008, Ms. Walker didn't tell me she was writing to CAHPI(BC) members as well. In addition to the honour of being your president at CAHPI(BC), I am still a fulltime home inspector, too, and I would have thought that Ms. Walker would have written to me in that capacity, if she was writing to individual members of CAHPI(BC). But again, thank you for so quickly letting your Board of Directors and me know about this action. Please rest assured that we know all about this consultation referenced by Ms. Walker. At the meeting on the weekend, you asked me for direction on how to respond to her e-mail. Well, we're all business people, and we're all pretty independent. It's not for me to tell you what to do ­ your voice is important, and no one, least of all me, should tell you what to do to make it heard. We're all pretty busy, too, and often that means we just don't have the time to look after family, our health, and our business, and to make sure government understands us, and listens to us. So I'm going to start by apologizing for what's going to be a very long read. But I think it is a very important one. In fact, it may be the most important message I've written in all my years as a home inspector. I believe that through inattention to the excellent work that each of us has done in building the Registered Home Inspector designation, and that we, with so many others, have done to develop the National Certification Program, Mr. Les and the ministry are placing BC consumers at risk, threatening our businesses, and our organization. I'm going to suggest that you read the whole thing, including the two resolutions near the end that were passed at the Quarterly General Meeting this past weekend. Please print out and read each of the documents attached to this e-mail, as they tell our story. Then, if you are willing, I'm going to ask you to do 5 things: 1. Forward this entire e-mail, the attachment Background Material.pdf to the Solicitor General ministry at PSSG-CPPO@gov.bc.ca 2. In the subject line, please write: Response to BC government regulatory framework for house inspectors. 3. Please CC your local MLA, whether government or opposition. Please go to the BC legislative website at http://www.leg.bc.ca/ and click on Members#146; on the left side of the page, second item from the top, to locate your MLA, and get their e-mail address. 4. Please CC your Mayor and Council. To get their e-mail address, use the UBCM Local Government Officials List at http://www.civicnet.bc.ca Click on "Local Govt Links and Info" and from the list, call your council and ask for the e-mail address that will get information to the Mayor and Council. 5. Please CC your federal MP, no matter their party. Federal government and agencies have played a significant role in advancing the National Certification Program. Please go to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Lists/M ... rrent=True To get an MP's e-mail address, click on the MP's name, and you'll get all their contact information, including an e-mail address. 6. Please CC Premier Campbell at premier@gov.bc.ca 7. Please CC me as well, at president@cahpi.bc.ca As I said above, we know all about this consultation referenced by Ms. Walker. And I have made sure Ms. Walker knows why CAHPI(BC) cannot participate, as the attached December 12, 2007 letter to her makes clear (attachment 1). In it, I reminded her of Mr. Les's August 3, 2007 letter to us in which he rejected the use of the National Certification Program standards as the baseline standards for BC, for reasons including his remarkable assertion that: "...the standards for British Columbia should account for building code, climate, and conditions in the province." As each of us knows, the Alberta and Quebec governments are moving to introduce industry standards based on the National Certification Program standards because they've been able to understand what the BC government does not: The National Certification Program was purpose-built with the flexibility to recognize and accommodate local and regional housing characteristics and provincial building codes. The National Certification Program, and the inspection standards it includes, were not built in a day, or just by any one group. All kinds of people ­ including the Construction Sector Council, the Alliance of Certified Building Officials#146; Associations (ACBOA), Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Human Resources Skills Development Canada ­ helped create the National Certification standard for the home and property inspection industry. These are national standards of competency, certification, and accreditation for private inspectors and municipal building officials. That brings us back to the e-mail Ms. Walker sent to you on behalf of Mr. Les, and the document that Ms. Walker asked you to fill out, which can be accessed at http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/legislation/current.htm It's no surprise that the document is not at all about using the NCP here in BC. And I agree with those of you who have said that it seems almost a punishment for the work the late Larry Hipperson started, and so many of us have been continuing: To protect BC consumers from con artists masquerading as qualified house inspectors when consumers are making the biggest purchasing decision of their lives. Many of you will remember the threat Mr. Les directed at me, and all of us, for corresponding to the Premier. There was a lot of media coverage of it in November, 2006, and I have attached a Vancouver Sun column from that time (attachment 2). It seems to me that when you read the document that Ms. Walker asked you to fill out, which talks about excluding and exempting some house inspectors from government licensing, but making others pay what could be as much as $1,800 or more for a licence, this #145; consultation#146; is not so much about protecting consumers from con artists passing themselves off as house inspectors ­ the consumer protection issue CAHPI(BC) started asking the BC government to take an interest in some five years ago. It seems to me, that the effort is aimed at creating more confusion for consumers as to who#146;s qualified and who isn#146;t, and one that's aimed at making CAHPI(BC) members and the consumers who rely on them pay for all of this unnecessary work and needless confusion. What do I mean by this? Well, some of you suggested at the Quarterly General Meeting this past weekend, that perhaps 80 per cent of active and qualified home inspectors in British Columbia are CAHPI(BC) members. I think you're probably right. And I agree with other members who have noted that because CAHPI(BC) members are in 178 BC communities, many of the inspections done for consumers in communities outside the Greater Vancouver are done by CAHPI(BC) members. That makes sense, too. So when Mr. Les rejects the National Certification Program as the baseline for qualification in BC, and tells us that after securing our Registered Home Inspector designation, then the National Certificate Holder distinction ­ a combination The Toronto Star calls the "gold standard" in the house inspection industry in the attached article (attachment 3) ­ that we'll then have to secure some new, third standard, then the BC government is going down an unnecessary and costly path. This weekend, I listened to many of you talk about how the changes in the economy are causing concern in your communities, your families, and your business. I agree with those of you who have made the point that CAHPI(BC)'s membership size and strength means that in over a hundred communities outside Greater Vancouver, when people seek a home inspection, it's very likely that the only inspector qualified, trained, accountable, and able to service the community is a CAHPI(BC) inspector. I see your point that some new third qualification as proposed by Mr. Les, that excludes some inspectors, and exempts others, but targets CAHPI(BC) members, and makes them pay $1,800 or more for a licence, perhaps even per year, will have a particularly negative impact on British Columbians who live in communities outside Greater Vancouver, and the men and women living there who have chosen to be home inspectors, and CAHPI(BC) members. Why? Well, either your business will have to eat the cost of the $1,800, or maybe you might have to adjust your prices to consumers to help afford it. But I worry that passing along the cost to folks might just make them decide not to have a home inspection. So frankly, I wonder if Mr. Les just doesn't want people to get home inspections, or if he's just trying to bust CAHPI(BC). All of this seems so silly. But make no mistake about it: CAHPI(BC) has been consulting with the BC government on this issue for the past five years. When Minister Abbott had the file, we presented to him, and he asked us to draft legislation to protect consumers. When Minister Coell took over the file and asked us for new legislation, we provided it to him as well. When Minister Coleman and Minister Les asked for information on the National Certification Program, we met directly with their staff at the Solicitor General Ministry. Never any response; but, promises in 2006, first from Minister Coleman on CBC radio on March 28 ( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... 60328.html ), then from Minister Les on July 27 on CBC radio, CKPG, and CHNL to take action to protect consumers by the end of 2006. Commitments that amounted to nothing. So, on February 28, 2007, almost a full year ago, time and industry progress did indeed pass the BC government by. With the National Certification Authority up and running, on time, as promised (http://www.nca-anc.com), with the first home inspectors to achieve the new national standards able to add "National Certificate Holder" after their names, CAHPI(BC) announced that the new standards were in place for the BC home and property inspection industry (attachment 4). By September 10 of last year, it was clear that the National Certification Program was succeeding in every province in the country. As we said in six regional news releases distributed that day (see sample in attachment 5), The National Certification Program (NCP) was introduced earlier this year, and of the 115 home inspectors across Canada who have achieved national certificate holder status, 16 are from BC. What's remarkable is that of 137 home inspectors across Canada currently working towards National Certification status, 57 of them ­ fully one-third ­ are from BC. British Columbia is leading the country in terms of the number of inspectors working towards achievement of national standards of competency, and BC consumers are the winners. And as we all know, since last September, the take-up rate on the NCP has continued to grow, with inspectors from all manner of professional organizations across the country ­ not just CAHPI ­ seeking and earning National Certificate Holder distinction. The National Certification Program works, for consumers, and for house and home inspectors. But with the Mr. Les having stated his view no-NCP view in advance of the start of his "consultation" I hope you understand why CAHPI(BC) participation was rendered impossible: In knowing the Solicitor General's position, the act of participating would indicate an abandonment by CAHPI(BC) of the National Certification Program, and send a confusing message to other jurisdictions responding so favourably to the long-overdue protection for consumers the NCP represents. I believe, therefore, that when I say this Solicitor General "consultation" is flawed, it is beyond repair, too. It's all one-sided, making sure that at its outset ­ after our consultative input for so many years had been ignored ­ our unique input was, from August 3, 2007 onward, to be precluded as well. So, we've been threatened. Strong, solid achievement on baseline qualifications for the industry built by Canadians from across the country has been ignored. And now, British Columbians are being faced with an ill-conceived, punitive, too-late regulatory lark that comes with as much as or more than an $1,800 price tag per inspector, perhaps even per year, when all that needed to be done was for BC to embrace the National Certification Program. This is a great deal of money for consumers and for business owners, but I don't overestimate our importance. There are other groups who are also experiencing the sloppy Solicitor General approach to consultations, where many millions of dollars are involved. As many of you read, a recent column in The Vancouver Sun (attachment 5) revealed how Mr. Les handled the announcement of a prison in Lake Country. Between the public's experience there, and ours with our own admittedly smaller issue, you begin to see that there is simply something wrong with the way these Solicitor General people conduct themselves. I want to close by telling you that I am so very proud of the work done by so many to build the Registered Home Inspector designation, and of the cooperation shown by each of you in supporting the efforts by groups from across this country to develop and put in place the National Certification Program. Through your efforts, more consumers each and every day know that when they seek the input of a registered Home Inspector and National Certificate Holder on the most expensive purchase of their lives, they can have confidence that because of that choice, they#146;re in a better position to make an informed decision. So thank you for the two resolutions you passed at the Quarterly General Meeting. In respect of responding to the BC government regulatory framework for house inspectors, the following resolution was passed: As a CAHPI(BC) Member, I endorse the position that any regulation of the home and property inspection industry in the province of British Columbia use the National Certification Program as the baseline for qualification/ I hope this letter, submitted by you as suggested above, allows you to uphold this resolution, making your voice heard, while making sure that people understand just how hard we've tried to work positively and cooperatively with the BC government for almost five years. And that just because the BC government has finally decided to act, it can ignore our input. Or worse, somehow pretend that a national industry standard, one that was developed and implemented while the BC government dithered, just doesn't exist. And I thank you for passing the second resolution. It serves two purposes, really. It highlights what many considered a disrespectful, clumsy effort by the Solicitor General ministry to go around your duly elected CAHPI(BC) Board of Directors, and the efforts and positions we have been advancing over these many years, all for the sake of proving some kind of "consultation" with you, when the Solicitor General ministry knows full well that no consultation with CAHPI(BC) has been allowed to occur. That said, it also reminds us that no matter the history with Mr. Les, or any of his staff in the ministry, there's always the chance of a new start. Should the Solicitor General ministry act, or be directed to act, to start anew, in proper and open consultations, to regulate or licence the home and property inspection industry in BC, your CAHPI(BC) Board of Directors CAHPI(BC) will advance use of the National Certification Program as the baseline for qualification. That resolution reads as follows: CAHPI(BC) Membership authorizes the CAHPI(BC) Board of Directors to act on their behalf with the Government of British Columbia in all matters regarding the regulation or licensing of the B.C. home and property inspection industry. Again, I apologize for the length of this letter to you. But if you wish to respond to the Susan Walker e-mail, I hope this letter, containing as it does some important background information, the two resolutions from the Quarterly General Meeting, and some very relevant attachments allows you make your voice heard in the clearest way possible. Sincerely Bill Sutherland, RHI, Kamloops President, CAHPI(BC) On behalf of: Vice President: Chris Stockdale, RHI, Richmond Treasurer: Craig Hostland, RHI, Kelowna Secretary: Owen Dickie, RHI, Lake Country Director: Don Ruggles, RHI, Victoria Director: Gary Poirier, RHI, Surrey Director: Stephen Andrews, RHI, Prince George Director: Dan Brown, RHI, Chilliwack To read Southerland's letter to Ms. Walker, click here.

It's quite common in older buildings to find that a mason had to slightly corbel a stack in order to get it to exit the roof where desired. It's normally not an issue if the stack is in good shape, has a good mud lining, and is flashed properly. However, it looks like someone didn't do a good job of flashing that stack. Either that or you've got a cracked crown and water is permeating the stack and degrading that mortar up near the top. Was it lined? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, While I generally agree with Walter says about being able to recognize furnace age, there are a few that are pretty difficult to tell. Trane and Thermo-Pride are two; the Trane's because for over 20 years the color scheme or basic appearance has changed very, very little and the Thermo-Prides because they look the same now as they did 30 years ago and the only way to get the age is to call the manufacturer and give them the serial number. The chart below should help. It's the chart that Jim talked about but I've recently updated it. To download the newly revised chart, click here ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Jerry, If you go to the home page, click on advanced search, and search the electrical forum for the word "disconnect" you should find a discussion from less than a year ago about main disonnects, sub-panels, and where the ground for the system needs to be located. Check it out! Also check the archives on MikeHolt.com and run, don't walk, down to the nearest book store and order a copy of Douglas Hansen's book, Electrical Inspection of Existing Dwellings - 2001 Edition. Once you get that book, sit down, read it, and then read it again, then contact a local electrician and ask him to allow you to ride along for a few days and ask questions. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Here in Washington the pest guys (includes HI's right now) are required to probe visible areas as carefully as possible but the concealed areas are open game. They actually teach folks to use the pointed end of a nice heavy wood pick and give supporting members a good hard whack wherever one suspects rot or insects. I have to admit, it's a whole lot more effective than a screwdriver for finding those hollowed out sills and rims. I generally use a screwdriver and my thumb. I did have a big rotten chunk break out of the bottom of a T1-11 panel one time when I pressed on it with my palm, but there was no question that the thing was rotting, because the sills and studs inside the wall were so wet you could squeeze the water out of them. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Matthew, I fixed the link. I had to go to Barry's site at: http://www.housedetective.com to get it, because Mortgage 101 and Inman News ran it in January on their sites and then made it inaccessible within days. It was actually first published back in June of 2007. Unless they somehow convince him to retract what he said, I suppose it will be available as long as you can get into Barry's archives. OT - OF!!! M.

Here's another piece on this topic from today's BCLocalNews.com. Click Here! There's a blog on this topic started by a Brit here. He's wondering why folks on this side of the pond don't just avail themselves of RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors). Guess we Yanks and Canadians are just too strange for a Brit to contemplate, with all of these cowboy home inspectors, eh, Rich? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Palatine, IL - January 25, 2008 The Examination Board of Professional Home Inspectors, an independent not-for-profit organization that develops, maintains and administers the nationally-recognized National Home Inspection Examination, now offers a Training Provider Directory on its website www.homeinspectionexam.org. The Directory is designed both to help home inspection students find local or virtual training and to help providers find more students. The Directory is searchable by state. For a yearly subscription fee, training providers can select one of three main listing options and then those with multiple or virtual locations can add states. Potential students view contact and website information for a provider by clicking on their state. “’Where can I learn to be a home inspector?’ is the question asked most frequently by callers to our office,â€

Eight years after a law requiring home inspectors to register with the state went into effect in Pennsylvania, some folks say that, because it's not enforced, registration has made things worse, because consumers now assume that all inspectors are licensed. They're now trying to go from registration to a full licensure law and are finding it tough going. To read the article, click here.

This article talks about a home inspector that probed for rot and allegedly left a fist-sized hole in the siding of a house. Did he go too far, or not far enough? To read the article, click here.

Hi, Well, even those that are anti-realtor can be painfully ponderous to read. As this obviously homemade and extremely cluttered example shows. Very little white space, no margins, misspellings, contextual errors (insured versus ensured), etc. The font color, or maybe it's the font, actually hurts one's eyes after reading about half of one page. The report made me cringe; it's got everything - passive voice, too few line breaks, lots of useless information, color codings and explanations of the color coding that go on forever. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, There was a news piece about this on Global B.C. this morning. For a video on this topic, click here and then click on "Global BC Stories" and then click on "Home Inspector Licensing."

https://www.inspectorsjournal.com/forum/linkto.asp https://www.inspectorsjournal.com/forum/LinkPolicy.asp

That's true, and of course we all know that Elvis never died and is secretly hiding in Duluth with Howard Hughes. OT - OF!!! M.

Hmm Looks like a business opportunity for an aspiring mafioso. Bet there'll be some fellas spoiling for that turf over the next few weeks. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Yeah, I inspected a few last summer. There have been a fair number of complaints about them on the internet. I too heard about the exemption but I've never actually seen it in writing. Last summer, when I looked at 16CFR1211 I didn't see any exemption listed for them. I suppose there might have been some changes since then. OT - OF!!! M.

Yeah, Based on the photos, if I'd seen that deck, the inspection of the deck would have lasted only long enough to establish comfortably in my mind that a significant amount of the deck is infested with incipient rot, in which case the whole thing needs to be torn off and carted away. No point in hanging around to write every single visible issue when the entire deck is loaded with invisible incipient spore. Probably about five minutes. Ken, this comment: Be careful when you write this kind of thing up that you're writing about actual "damage," and not just some longitudinal checking caused by shrinkage of the wood. Ever looked at a traditional Japanese post and beam structure and wondered about how all of those wood beams used for the roof and rafters don't split? Traditional Japanese carpenters cut kerfs into the long axis of beams and timbers in their buildings, so that when shrinkage occurred the crack simply widened and the wood wouldn't split randomly. Essentially, many of those timbers used in those buildings are intentionally "cracked." The post is in compression. Longitudinal checking with only the load of a deck on it isn't really an issue. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, I don't really see the distinction. The things that are conducive conditions are things that one inspects for anyway and should be reporting on regardless of whether it's mandated or not. The problem with the current situation is that one may not report on any of these issues unless one is a licensed pest guy and that makes no sense. So, the intent is to allow inspectors to do what they should have been doing all along, without the need to be a licensed pest guy to do it. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, I know of an 81-year old down in Florida who could do it in a matter of hours, but he absolutely hates the cold weather now. There's no way anyone could get him to go to Ontario in the wintertime. Hey, wait a minute, the Chadster is just across the lake! Give him a call; he can probably build a machine that will do it for you. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Whew, Just remembering my tiny Casio pen tablet with it's 6 inch screen makes my eyes hurt, I can't even imagine what it's like to try and see something on this. OT - OF!!! M.

George Ou is doing it again. This guy is like the Chad Fabry of the computer world. Click Here! OT - OF!!! M.