crusty

An open neutral is simply an incomplete circuit and will show up as a blank indicating an improperly wired or dead circuit. I'm not sure tht the other tester could tell the difference between an open hot or neutral could it?

Compaq simply has a bed rep based on long term poor performance. Think the General Electric appliance of the seventies.

The full time smarter agents are now seeing the value of using better inspectors, both for their own protection and their clients.

That is code everywhere (IRC 2000 and 2003). Specific jurisdictions may enforce "more stringent" code but at minimum, 3ft above the roof where it emerges and 2ft above any roof line or wall that is within 10ft horizontally is the code. The pictured flue is not code. Not "everywhere" has adopted the IRC.

Out here (UMC) it's 3 ft above the roof where it penetrates and 2 ft above any roof surface or wall within 10 ft horizontally.

Sorry, I have no personal expertise. I have a brother who is in the computer biz, quite knowledgeable and experienced. He advises me. He loves Toshiba for their reliability and service and speaks poorly of others.... Crapaq being one of them. I wish I could offer more detail but I'm relatively sure they have earned their bad reputation just like e machines, packard bell and others. I am just getting ready to switch from my word template to software and a tablet PC and am buying a Toshiba.

IRC 907.3

I have yet to have a problem with Compaq primarily because I have never owned one based on the fact that I have never heard anything about them that was not negative.

Someone needs to get to the chief building official and educate him. Ignorance is easy to eradicate.

Somebody let me know next time. I missed the arguement.[]

The IRC makes no distinction between gas and electric ranges for the 30" vertical clearance to unprotectsed combustible material above the cooking surface. Reduced clearances are permitted in accordance with the listing and labeling of the range hoods or appliances.

Personally one makes a quantum leap from reality if one assumes that what goes on in a court of law (especially with respect to home inspectors) is anything but silly, IMO. Sad but true. No said it was fair. Often, the reluctance to take the necessary action to provide a good legal offense in our report writing is one of the major causes that your E&O carriers are so ready to roll over and settle rather than spend the money to defend. The end result…… You pay the deductible and everyone's rates go up.[:-banghead] Crusty, that's not what he said. You're extrapolating from statements to conclusions that don't reflect what the statement indicated. He didn't say what goes on in court of law is silly; he said the notion that using a code reference makes our reports a code inspection is silly (or something like that). As far as E&O rates going up, if more people cited references for their statements, I believe we would find the rates going back down. No Kurt, I am the one who says what goes on in a court of law is often silly, defying logic.

Curt, lest there be any doubt my position is just this. 1) Education is a home inspector's best friend and something that a successful inspector will pursue his entire career. 2) The code is the basis for the most basic and viable part of your inspection. It is the basis for all the stuff we learn in the seminars , at ITA and from others in forums like this. It is no accident that some of the most respected experts in this business are writing the code checks and translating it for newer inspectors. They know their source materials. 3) IMO using the word code in the report disarms the disclaimer that says you are not doing a code compliance inspection. A good lawyer on the other side has the ability to make you look like a babbling fool[:-jester] in court. Duplicity in writing (comments vs. disclaimers) can lead a jury to believe that one is duplicitous in motive and they won't like you. That's all it takes to sway them. End game. No one says it is fair. Real life more closely resembles a high school popularity contest than the law books, even inside the court room. A sweet respectable housewife that states under oath that "When he mentioned the fact that my light switch did not meet code your Honor I assumed that he was referring to the wiring to the switches as well. How would I know he wasn’t applying the code to the entire electrical system. I'm just a sweet little working single mother with 3 young children."[-crzwom] vs. an ex construction worker turned home inspector with such prominent colleagues as that bozo that owns NACHI[:-pirate]. If your wife was on the jury who would she side with? 4) I study and advocate use of the code (especially the IRC regardless of it's adoption in your area) as the basis of our calls because it is well written, well organized, easy to understand and it's only a matter of time before it gains universal adoption. When one uses it as the basis (other than inspection of new homes where I feel a good inspector needs references to current local codes to gain credibility in the battle with the builders) for the calls, eliminates the reference to chapter and verse and substitutes verbiage like modern, current or industry accepted standards, for the C word in most cases he is using the safest existing standard for recommended safety upgrades and it doesn't matter whether or not it agrees with current applicable code. I always like to recommend application of the safest way I know regardless of what the code says. If I don’t refer to it and I recommend exceeding it so what. I never publicly bound myself to it. I bound myself to safety. 5) I have immense respect for Mr. Salty but unfortunately he doesn't butter my bread. If only life were so simple. He has logged hundreds, maybe thousands, I really don’t know, of hours on the witness stand as an expert witness for cases regarding home inspection and construction litigation (Sorry but I doubt that criminal proceedings in military court bear much resemblance to civil proceedings in civilian court Doc.) He logged nearly 20,000 home inspections prior to retiring and has been teaching the IRC for the last several years. His opinions are based on observations in real court cases, not theory and for that reason I respect them. He has nothing to do with my certification and I grew up and got over needing to look good a long time ago. Those that know the code will come to understand the code. Those that understand the code understand the reasons the individual provisions are in the code. Understanding that is knowledge. Knowledge is power in this profession. Read the first parts of the IRC where it discusses interpretation of the code and how the spirit rather than the letter governs. Citing code and holding it forth like a shield is weak and will get you in trouble sooner or later. IMO you are better off utilizing the underlying reasoning behind the code. It is more basic and less easily challenged. Lest there be any further misunderstanding that is exactly where I am coming from. If people disagree it matters little to me other than how it affects the cost of my E&O. I'm just sharing my experience and what I believe here, not trying to be right or look better than anyone else.

Personally one makes a quantum leap from reality if one assumes that what goes on in a court of law (especially with respect to home inspectors) is anything but silly, IMO. Sad but true. No one said it was fair. Often, the reluctance to take the necessary action to provide a good legal offense in our report writing is one of the major causes that your E&O carriers are so ready to roll over and settle rather than spend the money to defend. The end result…… You pay the deductible and everyone's rates go up.[:-banghead]

Just friendly advice. Like I said there are as many reporting styles as there are inspectors. I sincerely wish you good luck. I advocate use of the code at every opportunity. It's an absolute necessity to cite the code on new home inspections. I do. For inspections of existing dwellings I still advocate absolute use the spirit of the code and not the letter. Within the public realm the ability to do this allows one to interpret code which is what separates building officials from building inspectors.

I didn't mean to upset you pal. Have it your way. I study the code voraciously, it's the basis for 90% of my report calls, I am 3/4 of the way to my IRC combination certification (even though CA has not yet adopted it) but I never use the word in a report. The friendly advice I gave you came from a close friend, a retired inspector who now spends his days in court defending home inspectors as an expert witness (when they haven't bumbled so badly he can't.) Just passing along his observation based on real court experience. I’m not a lawyer or qualified to give you legal advice. For what it's worth, in my experience citing a code violation has a much slighter impact on clients where safety issues are involved than a brief explanation of the underlying reason for the existence of that portion of the code, which typically indicates an understanding of the spirit as well as the letter of the code and prevents the possibility of an attorney painting a false picture of what it is we do. Once you introduce the word code into your report, in a court of law you will be held to a higher standard where you are expected to use the code as the basis of your report and cite all code violations. You cannot pick and choose where to apply it and cite it. You take it all or nothing. About 6 months ago the referring agent informed me to expect a call or letter from the buyers' attorney on a property on which I did the listing inspection. It seems that the walk out basement that had been converted to bedroom area had flooded. There were also egress issues with the windows and the stairway was too narrow, only 34" wide. After receiving the head's up I went to my report and found that I had noted the emergency exit issue and the drainage problem....whew, but had missed the 34" wide stairwell. At the time of the inspection the agent and seller were having conversation about the permits for the conversion with the owner going on record as saying that the work was permitted and inspected but the records had been destroyed in some kind of accident at City Hall. The seller's agent got nailed for $5K, the sellers rolled over for $40K and the buyers' agent for an undisclosed amount but I hear he was the prime target. I was lucky and got out clean. My guess is that if I had called out and cited code on the bedroom exit well stair requirement rather than the inherent safety issue that is the reason for the code in the first place, I would at least be buying the remodeling work it would take to enlarge the stairwell and build a new set of stairs. Like I say, one can not pick and choose where to apply code. Trust me, you are better off not to go there. Best of luck to you anyway.

Jerry, That's pretty much how I worded it, along with the fact that there are two switches in the model home! I always like to add the "umph" of code when I can. Chris, For what it's worth, I would be careful about using the word "code" in your report other than to indicate that you are not conducting a code compliance inspection. As I have seen in court cases, when you use the word code, you create the impression that you are doing a code compliance inspection, at least in the mind of the attorney for the plaintiff. Many of us here in CA prefer to use "current building standards" instead. While we all know that the code is the current building standard, this slight distinction offers us a little more protection from the sharks and does not cross the line.

Is that stuff acceptable for use in the hot water distribution system?

I would assume because it supports fungal growth and deteriorates. I always call direct tile application on wall surfaces as well. It is an inferior application which often lends itself to conditions that adversely affect not only the substrate but the underlying structural components as well.

Here is the 2003 IRC Jim. 702.4 Ceramic tile. 702.4.1 General. Ceramic tile surfaces shall be installed in accordance with ANSI A108.1, A108.4, A108.5, A108.6, A108.11, A118.1, A118.3, A136.1 and A137.1. 702.4.2 Gypsum backer. Gypsum board utilized as the base or backer for adhesive application of ceramic tile or other nonabsorbent finish material shall conform with ASTM C630 or C1178. Water-resistant gypsum backing board shall be permitted to be used on ceilings where framing spacing does not exceed 12 inches (305 mm) on center for 1/2-inch-thick (12.7 mm) or 16 inches (406 mm) for 5/8 inch-thick (15.9 mm) gypsum board. Water-resistant gypsum board shall not be installed over a vapor retarder in a shower or tub compartment. All cut or exposed edges, including those at wall intersections, shall be sealed as recommended by the manufacturer. 702.4.3 Limitations. Water-resistant gypsum backing board shall not be used in the following locations: 1. Over a vapor retarder in a shower or bathtub compartment. 2. Where there will be direct exposure to water, or in areas subject to continuous high humidity.

Actually I've found a wide range of quality. This brand is legendary. I regularly see this. 26 years old and going strong. They made a copper lined unit that I have seen going strong at 40+ years old. Download Attachment: 130_3096.JPG 35.26 KB

Not true and as long as one is willing to accept that,[b)] there is little hope of consensus, standardization or accountability in our profession.

Does anyone think there is any truth in the rumor that Gromicko, Napadow and Holland are one in the same person? They do seem to have the same modus operandi.

So what do you do about the moisture barrier you drill through???

FYI Home Maintenance for Dummies has an excellent section on water heater maintenance. Of course 1 in 1000 will do it.