msteger Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 According to a recent Q & A column by home inspection know-it-all, Barry Stone, "many" do. It's hard to know what he means by many but the implication is that a lot of us recommend that clients research permits. I don't know about the rest of you, but the only time I'm concerned about whether a permit has been pulled for something is when the quality of the work is so bad that I suspect a couple of lobotomized chimps did the job. In my opinion, permit searches fall under the heading of due diligence and a prospective buyer ought to be doing it without any prodding by me. What say you; is Stone right or is he just making stuff up again? I routinely recommend my clients check with the seller for permits whenever I can tell something has been changed or added in the not too distant past. I see finished basements all of the time, some of which appear to be missing a vapor barrier, etc. and know of several instances that home owners got into trouble because a home they just purchased didn't have a permit for a deck or basement. They found out after they moved in when they got a permit for something else and the township came and said 'wait a minute, we have no record of your finished basement'. Each time, the local township required the home owners to remove the changes (finished walls, etc.). Even though the new owners weren't the ones responsible for not getting permits (the work was done before they bought the home), they are now the owner of record. The reason many people buy the home may have been because of the large finished basement family room. I recommend this permit search to help my clients prevent a 'tragedy' down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I tell em all. I don't see any downside to it. But I've have seen an upside for a few of them that found permits weren't completed or work wasn't propelry done to municipal requirements. Somebody had to pay to complete them, i.e. inspection and payment of fees or fix it to comply with municipal requirements and then re-inspection and payment of fees. Where's the downside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 There is no down side to recommending a permit search. I offer to do it for a fee and have been paid 100 bucks a whack for making a phone call and receiving a fax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyDP Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 It would seem like a good idea to recommend pulling a permit if there is noticeable work done. However, as someone earlier mentioned, where do you drawn the line on providing helpful info to the client? Do you recommend they contact the local water company to check the quality of water so they know if they need a purifier? Do you give them info on loans so they do not make a bad decision on a home loan? Do you recommend Radon, Termite, Lead Paint tests? Just curious, as all of these could be beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Friends, Obviously there is a point at which this becomes ludicrous. I suppose that we could also recommend that buyers contact NASA to determine if any asteroids are predicted to land near the property soon. Remember: A permit search is not 'additional testing'. It is free, it is smart, it is published information that is very readily available to anyone and it can only help your client. I have no trouble explaining why I do it. Who among us would like to explain in a deposition why you don't do it? "Um, yes, of course it's a good idea, and sure, um, I tell some people to do it, but I -errr...ahhhh----just didn't tell this client to, because....." Let's not overthink this one, fellas. Free, relevant information = Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyDP Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Thank you Jim! Sorry if I have frustrated you. Just playing devils advocate. And trying to learn from you guys that have been doing inspections for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 JDP, No worries. No blood, no foul! Enjoy the weekend, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mggrew Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I agree that this is due diligence that should be done by the prospective buyer or their agent and not just because an inspector advised it. However, I have seen far too many times that buyers or agents do not do basic due diligence on permits, certificates of occupancy, etc. I wrote about in my blog: http://grewdesign.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garet Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Why should buyers check up on old permit issues? ...so they don't hit a road block when they sell their house! 30 years ago no one would have batted an eye about a basement finished without a permit, but times have changed. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12652542 Ironic that this one was initiated by a real estate agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlbnaz Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 heres what i use & i change the wording somtimes if its a remodel It would appear that there was an addition(s) to the residence at sometime in the past. We suggest that you ask to see permits for these addition(s) and/or review the Property Disclosure Statement regarding the addition(s). We make this suggestion as a courtesy as this may protect you when you wish to resell the residence. If permits are available we suggest you obtain copies for your records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPF917 Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 If it makes you happy to do it, please continue! My inspections, specifically, are not code inspections. That's just as our state law, and most professional standards, say they shouldn't be. And, you may be entering a very slippery area recommending researching permits. If you are calling out a code violation and you're not currently licensed in that field, it can become a quagmire. You are, probably, setting a higher standard for that portion of the inspection than is covered in the rest of your inspection and report. Further, you are basing it on your knowledge and experience which isn't documented by governmental authorities. Even if you absolutely know it's wrong, if it's not your specific field, you should be recommending another inspection by a municipal official or a licensed professional in that field to verify your suspicions. If you're only recommending researching permits in one area of the building's systems, just make sure you're not setting a different standard for that section. It loses law suits, and costs a bunch, when you miss something in structure and yet recommended researching for permits on electric but not structure. Been there done that. Expensive lesson.[:-graduat Regards, John F. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 That's just as our state law, and most professional standards, say they shouldn't be. What professional standards indicate building codes shouldn't be referenced in a report? I'm aware of Kentucky's goofy requirements, and there may be others, but personally, if I lived in Kentucky, I'd ignore it. And, you may be entering a very slippery area recommending researching permits. How, and why, would recommending a permit search be "slippery"? If you are calling out a code violation and you're not currently licensed in that field, it can become a quagmire. You are, probably, setting a higher standard for that portion of the inspection than is covered in the rest of your inspection and report. Further, you are basing it on your knowledge and experience which isn't documented by governmental authorities. So, referencing public documents as support for an opinion is a quagmire? That would come as a surprise to every high school student writing a term paper, a doctoral candidate working on their dissertaion, or any other educated individual writing anything. You are recommending writing reports without any basis or reference......(?)...... Isn't the building code the thing that describes how buildings are supposed to be built? Are we some sort of informational eunuch's, shorn of that thing we need to provide factual information? What exactly should we base our comments on? Even if you absolutely know it's wrong, if it's not your specific field, you should be recommending another inspection by a municipal official or a licensed professional in that field to verify your suspicions. That's from the "Home Inspector as Functional Moron, Incapable of Making Intelligent and Accurate Opinions" school of HI education. The muni guy's are usually the one's that sign off on the stupid stuff. Most of the really problematic jobs I encounter are that way due to a licensed professional in another field screwing up. Home Inspection is my specific field. I work really hard to know what I'm talking about. Arguing to the contrary is arguing that we are not professionals; it's consignment to being figuratively lobotomized. If you're only recommending researching permits in one area of the building's systems, just make sure you're not setting a different standard for that section. It loses law suits, and costs a bunch, when you miss something in structure and yet recommended researching for permits on electric but not structure. Been there done that. Expensive lesson.[:-graduat Regards, John F. I'm not even sure what that means, but it sounds like a variation of the old "don't quote code or you'll be screwed" idea. Folklore dies hard in the HI world. Sorry for jumping on a new member, but everything in that post is out of whack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Brother Kurt, The breakdown we are seeing here is all too common in my own limited experience with HI's. As a breed, most of us know how to construct a house. Too few of us understand how to construct a report. For any HI to say something like: "Those stairs are against the code." is akin to a boxer bringing a Louisville Slugger to the ring. Seen through a certain lens, it might make sense; But in the context of a real-life match, it does not acheive the objective and indeed, rains trouble. What you advocate (and have, since Moses was still wearing short pants, I gather), is something very different -even though the differences may be hard to discern at first. You contend that we are perfectly able to make use of our local codes in writing reports -but in a markedly different way. May I take the liberty of paraphrasing you? Don't say: 'Those stairs are against Code.' Say something like: 'Those stairs are dangerous because the vertical distance between risers is uneven; there are no railings; and the treads are too shallow. (insert appropriate code references here) They must be rebuilt by a qualified contractor immediately.' Codes are words; meant to be used and easy to misuse. Understanding the difference is the key (as in most things). In this vein, I ask again: "What is the downside of relling a prospective buyer to look for permits on any -or every- given property?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I agree. One references the appropriate sections of the code to support their opinion; one doesn't just whack out something stupid like "them stairs ain't code". Without a reference, what the heck are our opinions based on? Boilerplate in a HI software package? I have it on good authority from not one, but two sitting Federal judges in Chicago (customers, and now friendly acquaintances) that there isn't anything underlying our body of law that would make this a problem. There is no risk of using a code reference in one part of the report, and not another; the idea that if we reference a section of a public document, then all things must reference a public document doesn't make any sense at all. Folklore dies hard....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bain Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I agree with Kurt. There has to be some ultimate authority with which we back up our opinions, and the only one I'm familiar with is the bloody code book. Otherwise, it becomes he-said/she-said and that normally devolves into something best avoided. I recently checked out a fairly new house around which the exterior grade was piled several inches above the floor system. The only remedy I'm familiar with is digging up the soil around the periphery of the house and damp-proofing the brick with an elastomeric sealant. There's a guy in my area who does it often and well. But the seller, his agent, and his contractor are trying to get off on the cheap and I just learned today that they have an engineer scheduled to look at the house tomorrow and--presumably--sign off on it. I don't want the buyer to get hosed, but what do I have to back up my opinion that the adverse grade is unacceptable? Nothing other than R404.1.6. Without it I'm just another home-inspector dude with a loopy opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Saunders Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Been there done that. Expensive lesson.[:-graduat Regards, John F. Doesn't sound like folklore to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Until we get to review the specific case law, with full discovery of all facts presented in the case, it's folklore. I've argued that this is folklore, along with WJ, Katen, Cramer, Morrison, Corey Friedman, Stever Hier, WJ's SPL Jean (high falutin' construction defects litigator in Nashville, TN), Navarro, Chris Prickett, Pete Engle, Charlie Wood fer chrissakes, Douglas Hansen (ever heard of Code Check, eh?), Redwood Kardon, Mr. O', (i'm sure I'm missing someone), and every other credible authority on the subject. Jean Harrison, previously mentioned SPL, presented at InspectionWorld on the topic. BTW, Jean almost single handedly drove Toll Brothers out of Tennessee, bless her little pea pickin' heart.......the babe knows court action and building code. We have all repeatedly requested established case law showing proof. Anything. Nothing has ever come to light. Ever. Google search has shown us nothing. Random polling on the message boards; nothing. I have personally gone toe to toe with the hayseed from Allen Insurance at a conference (I'll never get asked to speak there again....), and he could not provide evidence. Maybe this is it. This is the one that's eluded all of us since Moses wore short pants. If it be not folklore, docket #'s, subpoenas, and all relevant court records, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Had one yesterday with a basement remodel. It was an easy call - very obvious lobotomized chimp stuff; new wiring all cobbled onto K & T outside of boxes, yards of extra NM stuffed up in ceiling cavities or pulled into the panel, no grounds anywhere, new bathroom all plumbed with PVC for distribution pipe, no plumbing traps, bonding cables removed from metal pipe and no jumpers around the plastic stuff, high moisture behind drywall, new recessed lights (lots and lots of them) all tied into that old K & T, it went on and one for 23 pages. I recommended that they check with the city for permits. I doubt if they'll find any. OT - OF!!! M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 If it makes you happy to do it, please continue! My inspections, specifically, are not code inspections. That's just as our state law, and most professional standards, say they shouldn't be. What's a "code inspection?" And, you may be entering a very slippery area recommending researching permits. How so? Please don't say because if you do it in one area, you have to do it in all areas. That's just silly. It's a tired old saw that never had any merit and never will. Take care of your customer by giving him good information. That's really all you have to do. It's not complicated. If you are calling out a code violation and you're not currently licensed in that field, it can become a quagmire. You are, probably, setting a higher standard for that portion of the inspection than is covered in the rest of your inspection and report. Further, you are basing it on your knowledge and experience which isn't documented by governmental authorities. This makes absolutely no sense. It's like some kind of mantra with roots in the dusty mists of history. People keep repeating it without having any idea why. How does one go about setting an exactly even standard across all portions of an inspection report anyway? Even if you absolutely know it's wrong, if it's not your specific field, you should be recommending another inspection by a municipal official or a licensed professional in that field to verify your suspicions. Why? Is there some rule that says I'm required to waste my customer's time & money? What bad thing happens when you give your customer good information? If you're only recommending researching permits in one area of the building's systems, just make sure you're not setting a different standard for that section. It loses law suits, and costs a bunch, when you miss something in structure and yet recommended researching for permits on electric but not structure. Been there done that. Expensive lesson. Please share the details. Every time someone tells me that, it turns out that the suit has nothing to do with "uneven" reporting and everything to do with the inspector missing something important and/or writing a report that was confusing and full of wishy-washy cover-my-butt pablum. See Herner vs. Housemaster for a good example. - Jim Katen, Oregon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mberman Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It dont hurt anybody to check for permits even if they find out that permits were pulled and all inspections were completed.It just helps you as an inspector look better.Sometimes an AHJ can miss something to.we are only human.Matt Berman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcgosman Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 When if feel it is warrented I recommend them particularly for a heavy up. But normally it takes me about 20 seconds to search myself online for each job. It gives me a nice added history of the house. I tend to look at things from the buyers point of few. Most buyers would consider it useful information and I would feel remis if I withheld useful information. I have never had a problem with recommending a search or doing it myself and my clients appreciate it. Whats the down side? Also in some occations illegal work can void a home owners policy for a fire from illegal electrical work. This is particularly a problem with wood burning stoves with no permit. I do note when the work appears professionaly done and warn of complications that might arise if they get the officials involved such as having to open up drywall. Then this is the buyers choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Hockstein Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 When if feel it is warrented I recommend them particularly for a heavy up. But normally it takes me about 20 seconds to search myself online for each job. It gives me a nice added history of the house. I tend to look at things from the buyers point of few. Most buyers would consider it useful information and I would feel remis if I withheld useful information. I have never had a problem with recommending a search or doing it myself and my clients appreciate it. Whats the down side? Also in some occations illegal work can void a home owners policy for a fire from illegal electrical work. This is particularly a problem with wood burning stoves with no permit. I do note when the work appears professionaly done and warn of complications that might arise if they get the officials involved such as having to open up drywall. Then this is the buyers choice Just curious, What is a "Heavy up"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcgosman Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Heavy up? swapping out a 100 amp entrance and panel for 200amp I see this done all the time with no permit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Gotta love those regional differences in terminology. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.