Garry Sorrells

It may be robotic but someone still has to be a brick tender on the job, bricks and mortar don't show up by themselves. The machine has to be feed. [:-magnify It also looks that the joints are struck by humans.

You don't have much recourse unless it is in the purchase contract. Structurally it looks OK. You don't like the artists creation. Laying stone requires some artistry.. Not all have the artistic desire in their work. Probably was a get done job by the installer. The good side of it all is that you can tear out what you don't like and redo it. It is a relatively small area that you are dealing with so labor cost and materials are small.

Absolutely right on high Relative Humidity (RH) from drywall, painting, concrete and more. The flooring installer has to take that into account as well as the moisture content of the flooring materials being used. The installer as a professional has to know what they are doing. I can in 15 min teach someone to lay flooring, it is the prep that is a major part of the job with wood moisture content highest on the list.

The problem is not with the house but with the floor. Dollars to donuts the flooring had not been acclimated to the house. Also the flooring installer had not checked the moisture content of the wood before laying it.

How about? Heating system froze, rads cracked. To be a living age there it has to be conditioned (heated). So flipper puts in as little as possible. Room has a heat source and meets definition. Like in sports. Tell me the rules and I will figure out how to play the game. Seem like it was applied to this house.

Jim, I would suggest the path of less resistance. The request/demand was " insurer has directed owner to "repair" cracks/damage" . Knock off loose material and parg over the area. Insurance not saying anything about being out of plumb or anything else, just cracks and damage. So just do what they request and don't make a bigger issue than what they exactly say/require. Material cost $10 or $15, labor 4 hrs.

James, Most of the time the jurisdiction that is responsible for the road is also responsible for the run off. Getting them to correct the problem can be a long drawn out process. If this is a private road then your probably up the creak.... Taking on this burden would have to be a costly adventure to correct. Burns, catchment systems and drainage lines taking the water to smother location and directing it to an adjacent property that you would then be responsible for their new water issues and your liabilities. Unless the deal is to good to pass up you might consider the now famous advice of " RUN Forest RUN!"

I haven't seen one taken down that has been up for a while. My curiosity is the development of mold and fungus between the plastic and the foundation wall.

Well I would have arranged a contractor to come the same time frame as HI and bid the job. Most HIs will not consider quoting what will take to make repairs. It is a matter of experience, ability, liability or unpaid time.

Whit Sharkbite I would recommend that you chamfer (bevel) the ends. A small nick in the O-ring will come back to haunt you. It may take 6 months to a year before it starts leaking. Else. well prepared ends and caution, leaves you with a good easy connection. Longevity is another question; 5 yrs, 10yrs, 20yrs, 30yrs or more. We don't know yet. I have been using them for 10+ yrs and have seen a few failures due to installation technique. PS; Almost forgot to mention. Don't forget about elect bonding when using Sharkbite.

Even with pictures you may miss a lot of damage. How are the rafter ends? Just to pick one area. Then there is the question of the top plate. The list could go on and on. Then ask if the repair is to be an exact replacement of existing design. Your best bet is to get your own contractor to make an all inclusive binding bid for the work after he has physically inspected the damaged areas.

How high from floor is the window? I am guessing 53inches, but could be closer to 60, but can not tell. What did you measure? it may be a case of close was good enough for permit sign off. If that was the case then it is not tempered and stamp/etching not to be found.

And you can take it with you when you move. Just like the European concept with kitchens.

Where was the glass? By/in tub? How far off floor? In passage doorway? Subject to fall area?

-If there is a stack temp sensor ti may be acting up due to soot, contacts,ect. -The photo eye (cad cell) on the ignitor may be the cause. -Cracked insulator on the ignitor electrode rods may be allowing an intermittent arc to occur. - Wiring, loose connection. - Transformer. Parts: Depends what you are looking for. You can get parts for 60 year old burners, you just have to look a little harder sometimes depending on the manufacture. A lot of parts are adaptable with a little modification.

Have you asked the other HI if he could provide you with what he is using as his reference material for what he is stating???? If he has it let him pony it up. Sounds like you did all that was reasonable in 2006. Your client could have perused it after you had given him your opinion. Then again depending on the damage it may have happened even with the additional flashing as a result of how the builder had installed it.

The apprentice plumber was told that he were being paid as piece work on this job. So they thought the more pieces yields more pay for the day job.

Remove some of the turf. Install sump pit with perforated cover reset turf over cover. Water should drain through turf???

What you are really looking for is a shop manual for the boiler with specifications on its parts. I do not think you will ever find that. I didn't/wouldn't even waste the time looking. Your boiler is relatively simple and direct in how it works. Zone valves can be a hassle to deal with as they don't last as long as other other parts of the system and can give you trouble when purging air from the system. Being a hydronic system you should get to know and understand the generic operation and function of its parts. From there it is just the matter to find the replacement part that will work with your system. Gas valves, thermo coupler, burner, electronics connected to thermostat, circulatory pump, expansion tank, blow off valve and gauges. Things are very straight forward kinda like a 1960 V-8 engine, gas-ignition-burn-go. Not working properly is to non specific to comment on without writing a book. The noise you hear probably is air in the system. . Though a pump going bad can make some odd noises depending what is failing (impeller,bearings,armature). Make sure that you have a working water supply and no leaks. Boilers do not like running dry. If the sections are cast iron it can last almost forever. One thing you might want to replace is the temp/pressure gauge. It is one of the few thing that actually tells you shat the boiler is actually doing. Again find of a basic hydornic boiler book and study up. Like most things not hard once you know what you are doing.

Saying it is about the kids is fine. The testing methodology is what is important to the HI or anyone else investigating the door's functional operation. Having a rational process is what reduces the liability for the HI and at the same time makes sure that the operation is correct and thus offering the protection to kids or anyone else. The thread started with KarenK and her disaster. Whether it was correct to subjectively determine the downward force of the door before it reversed. Karen's checking with her mediate sources said that she was wrong, then with additional arguments that this determination should be done as stated by Marc, "The pressure reverse test recommended in this manual is exactly what you are not supposed to do." referring DASMA instructions. CPSC and manufactures have not said that checking the force is prohibited. In fact the manufactures have started to direct checking the force in their installation instructions I have always taken the position to check the force adjustment for many reasons as I have tried to point out. Knowing what your are doing and doing what you know is what keeps you out of trouble and liability for failures that occur. I can agree with Kurt that there are many governmental proclamations and CPSC specifications that are done to reverse natural selection. Many are stupid and are to protect the stupid. But I would say the the garage door test is not just another stupid effort. The garage door reversal system is one of the " not a bad idea " efforts.

Kinda apples and oranges. (( just for clarity, we are talking about sectional vertical doors with openers that do not have contact strip on bottom of door edge, also it is assumed that that all aspects of the physical installation of the door and operator have been inspected prior to use or testing )) The force settings are something different than the 2x4 entrapment test. The 2x4 test requires reversal at 1 inch from floor within 2 seconds of contact with object on floor. There is no specification on the amount of force exerted on that object during those 2 seconds. In theory it could be 2 tons of force exerted during those 2 seconds. Force testing is a function of the movement of the door itself. Meaning the amount of force to overcome friction of the track wheels and door weight. The amount of force that was applied by the motor, in the past, had manual adjustability. As part of the installation the force applied from the motor to the door was set at the discretion of the installer. Typically the installer adjusted so that the minimum yet adequate amount of force was being used to move the door. The reason being that the installer did not want the motor drive to damage the door if it bound up in the tracks or encountered something abnormal in its movement. Or crush the door if the travel limit was set to far. Meaning that the motor would try to drive the door 3 inches into the floor. So the installer would test/adjust the amount of downward force of the door prior to allowing the door to meet the floor. Usually at 3 or 4 feet from floor using their had to create the obstruction and sense the amount of force exerted by the motor drive, totally subjective. Why do this? The installer did not trust that the manufacture setting form the factory would be correct causing potential damage to the door before the settings could be corrected. ((Installer self preservation on buying another door)) ((without getting into chapter and verse)) The CPSC requires that the door meeting an obstruction at any point in its downward movement to within 1 inch of the floor to reverse direction. There are no specifications on the amount of force that may be exerted to trigger the reversal function. The CPSC requires that the door meeting an obstruction at any point on its upward movement stop. There are no specifications on the amount of force that may be exerted to trigger the stop movement function. Then there is the 1 inch from floor entrapment reversal test. ((2x4 test)) Again, there is no specification on the amount of force exerted during the 2 seconds of contact prior to reversal. Now with the newer motor drives the manufactures have started to include testing, in their installation instructions, of the force exerted on potential obstructions. Pretty much catching up top what installers have been doing on their own. Which is why I linked to Liftmaster and Chamberlain as a manufacture reference to substantiate my point/position, Genie I will discuss later. With Chamberlain they specifically state, http://www.chamberlain.com/CatalogResou ... 4A3165.pdf , Page #21 HOW AND WHEN TO ADJUST THE FORCES " 1. Test the DOWN (close) force Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through DOWN (close) travel. The door should reverse. Manufacture does trump DSMA, but in the case of chamberlain/Liftmaster they are saying the same thing. Genie and some others motor have preset electronic systems that control force adjustment during the installation and do not have you testing the force manually. The real bottom line is that the door must reverse at any point of it downward travel when it meets an obstruction. If the force setting/adjustment is set to high the door will be damaged upon meeting the obstruction if the obstruction is a solid mass. Which can be avoided by having a minimal force setting in place. In the situation of the door with a high force setting and hitting a person it could drive the person to the floor and cause severe injury before the door did reverse, CPSC 2 second specifications. How do you prevent the door or a car being damaged and also reduce the risk for personal injury? Have a minimal force setting. How do you determine that the motor is set at a minimal less damaging setting. Grab the door as it is closing and perform a subjective test. It should reverse with minimal force applied to the door edge. When the HI goes to test the door against entrapment they can toss a 2x4 under the middle of the door and hope for the best and expect the worst. When the door is damaged the HI can just write "Failed under CPSC and manufacture testing guidelines". OR, the HI could test the CPSC requirement of reversal prior to meeting the 2x4 by restricting the doors movement using their hand at 3 or 4 feet from the floor. Thereby determining subjectively the potential risk that the door may be damaged when it encounters the 2x4 on the floor. As a side note, the door travel limits, on older units, have the adjustment to not reverse at a set distance from floor. By example the need to compress a door bulb seal. The operator is set to not reverse at some point during the last 7/8 inch of travel to compress the seal. Though if there is an obstruction the door could be damaged. But that is a story for another day.

Marc, Have to say that your are wrong in your position. The link is to a January 2006 thread directed at demonstrating the source rational for testing methods. Things change and time has the opportunity of having past practices that were not supported other than by what was actually done in the field made standard practice. Being that installers have for over 25 years performing some variation of the force test using their hands to test the doors force on closing, for a variety of reasons. The Underwriters Labs did the testing and set the criteria for what was to become the Consumer Products Com. Regs. These Regs were the basis for what many would use as the criteria for the liability incurred during testing garage door operators. The discussion over correct testing methods has flourished for many years. Yet the discussion would always return to what was stated in the regs and what the manufactures specified as part of their installation instructions and operation manuals. Between the CPSC and the manufactures specifications and directions liability for damage due to failure under testing could be relegated to the owner and their lack of proper maintenance and adjustments of the door and its operator mechanism. Many inspectors and others through the years have tested the doors as the installers did during the original installation, which was to use your hand to test the down force of the door at waist level. Even though it was not specified by the manufactures installation instructions, it was a normal practice. Recently the DASMA and manufactures have begun to include the use of your hand in the determination of force to reverse or stop the door?s movement in their installation and testing directions. So, inspectors and others now can remove their liability for door failure by referring to the manufacture?s installation instructions and DASMA as the authoritative sources for testing methods. It has been a long time coming for there to be sources to quote that supported the standard practices that were being used in the day to day installation practices by the installers for decades.

The pressure reverse test recommended in this manual is exactly what you are not supposed to do. Marc Marc, Exactly what do you base that opinion on?

Karen, Don't beat your self up. Testing the operator force setting is far from unusual, which was what you were doing. Testing from the exterior is not my first choice and would be atypical for me. Yet in reality there is no difference other than being able to see how all of the door components are operating. If you had confirmed prior to testing that all of the door and operator components were there, including door operator bracing and correct door reinforcement along with inspecting the tracts and installation, then operating the door and testing would be correct. If something was wrong then testing may not be advisable. If the door and operator were installed correctly then the door failed under testing. ((( not your fault )))). I have a feeling that the door was not reinforced for the opener correctly. Which if it was a single sided steel door is common, yet wrong. Take a look at: DASMA ((check out the pictures)) TESTING AND MAINTAINING THE GARAGE DOOR OPENER: http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/B ... enance.pdf Liftmaster: http://liftmaster.custhelp.com/app/answ ... _the_Force Test the DOWN (close) force Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through DOWN (close) travel. Chamberlain: http://chamberlain.custhelp.com/app/ans ... l/a_id/246 Step 2: Adjust the Force Test the DOWN (close) force Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through DOWN (close) travel. The door should reverse. Test the UP (open) force Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through UP (open) travel. The door should stop.

Just need some blind faith.