In October of 2022, an inspection was performed on home X, where kickout flashing had not been installed.
It was recommended due to staining down the vinyl siding (moss/ lichen, etc) as well as soil impact depressions, etc.
Today, nearly one year later I received this image from the client, saying that when the roofing company came to remove siding for the kickout flashing this was discovered and started at the lowest level.
The damage was behind tyvek, and behind vinyl siding.
And recommendations on how best to navigate this, client is not thrilled, but there was no interior indications of damages, staining, mildew, etc.
Any actual advice would be recommended as this is my “first issue” in the 4 years service.
Client one year, was more than happy with the inspection and the job performed.
This is what was written.
“Kick out flashing is recommended to be installed on the rear portion of the garage, where the roofline meets the homes vinyl siding.
The kick out flashing as shown in the attached image, helps divert water shed away from the dwelling, reducing the possibility of water intrusion behind the siding.
The installation of a gutter and downspout to diver the water away from this area is also recommended due to the visible soil erosion, high moisture content as well as the location of vital components of the home. (Heat pump, electrical main service entrances, etc.)”
I’m not sure why you mean by PIA , sorry, I am located in Eastern Canada
PIA = Pre-Inspection Agreement, ie. your contract that you have them sign PRIOR to your inspection. I use InterNACHI’s most recent and this is what it says on line 5 covering this matter:
5. General Exclusions: An inspection IS NOT technically exhaustive. An inspection WILL NOT identify concealed or latent defects
So, was this defect visible to you during your inspection by any indications inside and outside? If not, there was no way you could have reasonably observed this defect. Did you take a bunch of CYA (cover your ass) pics of this area, interior and exterior so you can prove there was no visible evidence of water damage/wood rot or any other indications in this area? Do you subscribe to Joe Ferry’s ClaimIntercept?
This is a better first question that we need to know to best assist you.
@dfreund there are images inside and out, detailing the home, although without the seeing behind obstructed layers, it wasn’t “overly photo documented”.
I only use the Internachi online electronic residential agreements for all my contracts.
Don’t respond. They’re fishing. Wait until they make their position (demand) known before you respond, at that point you will know how to navigate. Maybe they just want to see (fishing) what your response is, when you don’t give one they’ll back off. If you respond you are just encouraging them to ask for financial aid. No telling how far that can go. Some people are fairly unreasonable.
IMO, they are keeping you informed of a problem that you warned them about.
I would approach this on a friendly, helpful approach, NOT ACCUSATORY, unless they inform you otherwise.
Straight out ask them if they need any information such as contractor type to contact, etc. They may just be overwhelmed and need advice.
At the moment their story changes to accusing you, inform them you can no longer converse with them directly, and all future contact must be through email/postal (in writing), which will be forwarded to your Attorney.
If your pre-inspection agreement referenced InterNACHI’s SOP which explains what an inspection is and what it is not, then I wouldn’t worry too much. You called out the missing kickout and that its absence could lead to water intrusion. They followed your recommendation and took steps to have it corrected. It’s unfortunate that they have to deal with the water damage, but it seems like everyone involved is doing the responsible thing.
As far as what to do next: Don’t apologize in the sense that it’s your fault, because it’s not. But recognize that a major repair like this in the first year of ownership is frustrating, and possibly a hardship for them. They’re dealing with some crummy emotions right now. If you can, go there and talk to them about it. Review pictures of that area from the day of the inspection, so they can see that none of it was visible. Then be human. Commiserate with them. “There, there. I know this must be frustrating.” Taking the time to do that will show you care about your clients, and you’re not cold and heartless. That”ll help your reputation and can lead to more relationships and work in the future. And it’s just a nice thing to do.
But never admit fault. And if they accuse you of liability follow @jjonas advice.
This is a bit more than a loose toilet. And who knows how extensive this damage is around the home?
I would talk very little. Ask them how you can help without being defensive. Because it’s not your fault. Don’t pretend it is or hint that it could be your fault.
I would probably be giving my insurance company a heads up.
That pretty much covers it right there as far as I am concerned.
Looking at that photo, that is hard core damage assummed caused by the lack of a kickout diverter. That worst damage appears to be quite a distance from the corner. Do you have a picture from further back so we see the bigger picture?
I’m thinking something else contributed to the water intrusion behind this weather barrier at one point.
I agree. That is why I mentioned “who knows how extensive this damage is around the home?”
This looks like a pretty old problem. Question is, was the problem presenting itself at the interior at the time of the inspection? Looks like a basement home
