AHI in AR

Real stucco is very rare around here, so I don't see much of it. In looking at the pics, the only commonality that I can see is that it is near the lower end of the walls. It doesn't really look like it, but is there a chance it's efflorescence? Did you try rubbing it, wetting it (to check for color change) or seeing if there was any residue on the shingles?

Guys-- The roofing is not installed yet on the little gables over the windows, yet the valleys there are already cut. How the hell are you going to install shingles UNDER that area now when the gables are roofed? The shingles over the window gables must be on there before cutting those valleys. The main roof should, of course, overlap the gable shingles unless there's going to be an open valley of some sort -- like metal or 90#. Even then, that should be there prior to shingling the area. It's possible that the main roof was shingled and the left window gable added later. Note that it is sheathed in plywood, not OSB like the rest of the building. Some felt would be great also. Oh yeah, the Tyvek running vertically is a nice touch.

My statement earlier was: Something has been outgassing a very corrosive compound. What it is exactly, I can't say. Any pool cleaning materials, or fertilizer smells still lingering in the area? Is there a chance that someone cooked meth there? I'm feeling like Rodney Dangerfield about now...[]

At the risk of being gross, I would speculate that a real man could simply use the wide, plastic urinal, AKA the laundry sink...or the floor drain in the corner! The porcelain urinal is superfluous. But it is funny.

Something has been outgassing a very corrosive compound. What it is exactly, I can't say. Any pool cleaning materials, or fertilizer smells still lingering in the area? Is there a chance that someone cooked meth there? Someone more knowledgeable than me will likely know. But in an interior panel it would seem that it would have to be an airborne chemical. Oh yeah...it's not OK. It needs work. Along with other issues, you have to assume that the interior of the breakers are just as fouled. If so, they won't work reliably.

Arkansas has a one year limitation as follows: -52-320. Limitations. (a) Any cause of action to recover damages suffered by a consumer as a result of any act or omission of a home inspector relating to a home inspection report must be commenced within one (1) year from the date the report is completed. Honestly, I think it's absurd to even consider multi-year periods. A house isn't some static entity; it's dynamic. What works/doesn't leak/isn't rotten/isn't cracked/keeps water out or whatever today as it should may well not do the same tomorrow. Combine the normal changes in weather, occupancy/usage, and aging, and it seems clear to me that the home will not be the same a month after an inspection, much less 3 years later. If we assume the above is true, then tell me (as a practical matter) just how you go about proving what conditions existed years earlier in an attempt to prove that an inspector blew it?

Improvisation can be a good thing. Well, it can if you are, say, a talented actor or musician... Otherwise, Alex PLU = Alex pathetically laughable use? Potentially leaky use? Probably leaky unions? Perhaps Largely Useless? Positively the Last Use? Please Leave Upright? Damn. I gotta get a life...

I think pre-listing inspections are a logical idea, but there are some legal issues that have kept me from pursuing them harder. What few I've done have been with the express acknowledgment that the guy following me working for the buyer may very well write up something that I don't view as a problem. (Some guys around here are BIG on obvious cosmetic defects and harmless concrete shrinkage cracks.) Call me a cynic if you want, but I think the reason most agents don't push a pre-listing inspection is that they don't want to know about any defects, and they don't want their sellers to either. It makes it easier to fill out the sellers disclosure form when all ya have to do is check all the "no" boxes. Call it plausible denial! I guess they'd rather take the risk that an incompetent inspector won't find much wrong after an offer is written.

I once knew a carpenter's helper who worked on a crew that framed a few houses for me. He did a stint in Alaska as an oilfield worker and claimed that "nobody" got permits up there. He swore that when the engine in his old van died, he got a buddy to dig a nice deep hole with a backhoe. In went the van, stripped of all interior bits and the engine, transmission and wheels. Sheet metal was screwed over the side window openings, and field lines extended out from there to create his new septic system. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But I could see someone trying it.

Looks like he was pretty well fed up until his last meal.

While doing a little quick research on CF day, I found this video taken at his last inspection. It seems some of his abilities are already not what they used to be. http://www.break.com/index/old-dude-falls-off-roof.html Be careful out there, Chad. You do wanna see your next b'day, don't you?

I suspect that what they were really getting at is that architectural grade shingles last longer due to their laminated construction.

What you probably have is a functional galvanized cap over the chase opening which is sealed to the actual metal chimney section with silicone or similar. It laps --or at least, it should -- over the brick on the edges. There is a decorative black cap over that. We can't see whether the galv cap extends properly over the edges of the chase, (since it's covered by the black cap) but I do see efflorescence extending down the chimney from below the corbelling. I still suspect some leakage there. PS: Ya'll got a lot of birds there? That's a bunch o' droppings on that cap!

Good pics of the cap and upper area would be helpful -- I see some efflorescence in the third pic in the first post so I suspect some water entry above the roofline. I have seen some chimneys where water was simply seeping through the brickwork in sufficient quantities to make a mess of things below. In any case, the flashing is not properly done, but I would look upward as well since I suspect that's the major source of water entry.

My money says that if there's a "ho down" the musical entertainment is a rap group. A hoedown, on the other hand, could involve a bluegrass band.

Expensive.

The price is at the top. Only 15 mil.

Les, I'm in Arkansas; Brian is in Mississippi. I would not be surprised if the depth that they are required to bury water lines isn't too much different from what we have here. For the record, I am on city water and always have been. Since our frost line is only about a foot deep, water lines may not be buried nearly as deeply as they are farther north. There's a definite seasonal variation in inlet temps. I can tell you that I can't come close to washing my hands with cold water comfortably in the winter. In the summer, the water borders on lukewarm. In fact, it's warm enough that I don't drink it without ice.

This is so simple, I'm sure you've considered it, but just in case... If the way you determined that the water heater isn't producing as much hot water as it used to is that you run out of hot water faster when showering, there may not really be anything wrong with the water heater. The incoming water that is being mixed with the hot water is colder at this time of the year, so it takes relatively more hot water per minute of usage to get the outlet temp you want at the shower or tub. Taking long showers in the summer: not a problem. Taking long showers in the middle of the winter: possibly a problem.

We all know that "all" the homes being done that way means nothing. After it all, it could have been the same poorly trained roofer who did all of them. As I see it, the bottom line is that a properly done metal flashing will work well for a VERY long time. It may even outlast the shingles. On the other hand, a flashing dependent on tar goo to seal it will need work every few years.

I'd have to say you have a problem. I do see some black goo on the side of the housing, indicating an attempt to seal the edges, but any water that may make it past that would only get dammed up at the lower end. Eventually, some water will get in there and drain down. With a bottom shingle impeding the exit of that water, it would likely move laterally and find its way through the roof decking.

Is merely being "ugly" prohibited by code? If so, I'm in trouble...

I think Brandon largely covered things. First, ventilate the attic properly and seal the chimney cracks. But to amplify on his comments -- if the crack in the joints around the improperly flashed chimney did indeed grow larger after your time there, then the amount of moisture in the already inadequately vented attic would definitely increase. That would obviously reduce the ability of the structure to "bleed off" moisture to other areas as it may have in the past. Therefore, the problems seen now might not have been there when you were living there. The rest of the issues I can't help you with. The siding/guttering/rain issues would have to be looked at on-site to be properly assessed.

We don't get cold enough around here to see that sort of thing, but I'd guess that the coloration of the "stalagmites" is due to the inclusion of combustion byproducts from previous use as a woodburning fireplace chimney (resins, etc) in the condensation.

Count me as one who doesn't consider that an S trap. Normally, I believe that the highest likelihood for a problem for that design would be due to the fact that there is too much slope to the "horizontal" section -- leading to the possibility that the more solid components of the waste stream (soap, hair, etc. ) could separate out because the water will exit more rapidly than the more dense materials will. If that happens, you can get a build up of gunk in the trap. However, that is a pedestal sink. I assume it is in a seldom used half bath. If so, the real likelihood of a problem in anything close to a reasonable time span is pretty small. But it's still wrong.