I remember my first home, 10 X 50 on wheels with the electrical panel in bedroom closet.
Of course, it had to pass Ontario Hydro inspection before connection; that was in the late 70’s.
The fuse panel got replaced with an up to date panel but stayed where it was, in the bedroom closet. The other issue was an electrical motor with exposed winding in the range hood which needed replacement for obvious reasons (grease build-up could result in fire).
The licensed electrical contractor advice was to remove the fan motor and re-install it after the inspection.
I was in my 20’s back then and followed his advice.
Knowing what I know today, I would have never followed his ill advice!
Okay … so … a home inspector should recommend something else so that the parties responsible for the condition of the home might agree with his recommendation? Is that the job of a home inspector, in your opinion?
In my opinion, the inspector should simply point out the defect and recommend that it be corrected. If his advice is ignored, it does not change the fact that it was his duty to report it. He is not a negotiator.
No you don’t understand, a true Home Inspector knows where to draw the line.
Based on experience, one would know that an electrical panel such as shown on the OP is far from contributing to a fire hazard.
It is accessible and can be worked on.
I am realistic and loggical. Give me a break. Nothing wrong accept meeting todays standard Code.
I would note that todays standard of building does not approve of an electrical panel in a closet and it either be relocated or maintained in a free accessible condition to prevent a hazard to the occupants.
I don’t think I have ever disagreed with any post on this message board more than I disagree with this one.
A “true home inspector” (whatever that is) should not write soft reports. He reports the defects and recommends that they be corrected. He leaves it to others to work out any compromises. The day that this changes is the day that home inspection reports should be included within the brokers’ listing advertisements.
Tell your doctor that you started smoking cigarettes before 1964 when the Surgeon General began posting his warning on cigarette packs and how, thus, they offer no threat to your health, today. LOL
In my opinion, when the NFPA says that a particular location for an electrical panel is unsafe, it is immoral for any home inspector to report otherwise to his client. Other opinions will vary and I understand this since not all inspectors have the same agenda, but we are not just talking about “ease of access” for future repairs here.
So far we all agree panels in a closet are against present code .
We can say safety is the law of physics and has nothing to do with anything and granfathering is a cop out but how many of us called out closet panels before they were code ?
As a matter of fact how do we even know code applies where the OP is ?
Really not much to argue about here .
Just curious if we all were calling out lack of AFCI before 2006 as well.(hmmm is it in that panel ?)
It looks like the 1981 NEC edition is the first to mention breakers in clothes closets…As I stated earlier, I built a home here in Nashville in the late 1980’s and the electrician put the panel a clothes closet. The local county inspector caught it and made the electrician relocate the panel.
Read this entire JLC article… particularly the quotes they took from inspectors on this message board.
People actually die from unsafe conditions in the home every day. In my opinion, the home inspector who is providing a complete, accurate and unbiased inspection report will simply call out the defects to his client without regard to the welfare or opinions of anyone other than his client (the prospective home buyer).
Again, I know that this view is not common to all home inspectors. Not everyone here will agree. This is why it is important for consumers to select their inspector by using factors other than who has the cheapest fee.
J.B you live in a place a place with no hi rises and hope one day you can visit to see that
here we have many thousands of units that can not in any way ,shape or form comply to certain codes that were written after they were built.
Just noticed this is on public so at least understand the grand standing going on here .
SEO juice .Got it …
There are unsafe buildings in every city. There are people who are buying them and who are paying home inspectors to report on their present condition.
I don’t think the family ofthis dead childhave found comfort in the fact that the unsafe condition that killed their child was present before the rules forbidding it.
I could be wrong, but I would think that they would have preferred to have had their inspector inform them of its presence and have recommended the proper repair. If they had received such a report and “laughed” (as you put it), it would be on them.
I think we are having two different discussions.
Here comes the dead children commercial.
I said you would be laughed at because a good inspector knows what can and can not be done.
You report best practice,you report safety issues,you give a reason why .
The best inspectors use F.O.G.
Let me explain what that means .
Fact.Opinion.Guidance.
My Fact is that every home would be safer with a built in sprinkler system.
My Opinionis even though it would be safer putting that in every report would be laughed at .
My Guidance is making sure every home has a working Smoke and Carbon Monoxide detector in places where required and recommending them where required.
J.B let me ask you right now where are detectors required in your municipality ?
Do you know where they are required in Chicago ?
Whose code is safer for the children ?
Do you recommend past that code and how far ?
No matter how you reply I can state you are being soft and care nothing for your clients safety.
I can go one step further with safety recommendations and make you seem callus and uncaring .
The author of this thread pointed out a condition that is prohibited by the NFPA. It is a fire hazard according to the people who make their living from putting out deadly fires.
It was suggested that a recommendation that is in compliance with the standards established by the fire fighters would result in an inspector being “laughed at” (see Post #7).
I have simply pointed out that, in my opinion, it is immoral for an inspector to do anything less but to point out the hazard and recommend the improvement required by the standards written by the NFPA. In my opinion, it should be left up to others to suggest or arrive at “compromises” and it should rest upon the prospective buyer to accept them, reject them and/or walk away.
This is still my opinion and I readily acknowledge and accept that it is not shared by everyone. If it was, such conditions would not be as common and the debates about them would not be as long.
I can suggest upgrade to a accepted national standard is best practice but that does not make it feasible in all cases.
Lets try another example that I hope will help you see more clearly my point.
Back on high rise condos here because they provide an easy theoretical.
Kitchens built into middle of structure in a 50 story building.
No units have exhaust fans.
My recommendation is to install one but in this case that would be impossible and not allowed as no large hi rise is going to allow a tenant to puch holes in the exterior wall covering.
Yes I would be laughed at for telling them to install one because my job as an inspector is not just to be a memory expert who parrots written code and best practices but it is to also use common sense.
My verbal on site conversation would be to note there is no exhaust in the kitchen,ask my client if they do a lot of cooking and as an alternitive explain they could get a charcoal filter for the range hood or micro hood which is costly over time and not as effective.
This is called being practical and being aware of your location.
The above is my only point.
Now in the case of the closet as mentioned I would want to see the structure ,the wall on both sides,find out what kind of property it is and base my recommendation on the facts in a holistic manner.
Besides moving the panel my recommendation might include converting the closet into a utility room only ,but again it depends on other factors.
My business has grown because I cater to my clients needs and go beyond expectations anytime I have the oppurtunity.
Anyway have a great night Jim and glad to see you back rable rousing.
There is one other important point concerning the original question.
The NFPA has clearly stated in 90.5(B) that there are “permissive” prohibitions that describe “options and alternate methods” and, in 90.5(A), that there are actions that are “mandatory” and “required” prohibitions that are characterized by the words “shall or shall not”.
240.24(d) states that these devices “shall not” be placed in clothes closets.
Accordingly, the prohibition is not permissive but mandatory - and even an AHJ in a jurisdiction having adopted the NEC by ordinance would be prohibited from permitting it.
IMO, there are no circumstances that exist in which a mere home inspector … no matter what amount of pressure he felt being applied by parties to the sale (including “laughter”) … could legitimately recommend anything other than the required remedy.
Best recommendation is to relocate the electrical panel out of the closet. Not always practical. Many of the home improvement stores here sell plastic “cages” (for lack of a better word) that can be installed over the electrical panel to keep clothes away from the panel. The AHJ’s in many of my cities have approved such a practice. The cage opens very easily to quickly get to the electric panel itself. I did have one Client who made his own “cage” out of wood to keep flammable materials from contacting the panel. Somewhere around here I have a picture of the wood and plastic cages. I’ll see if I can find them and post them.
This if from the 1999 Edition of the NEC
240-24 Location in or on Premises.** (D)** Not in Vicinity of Easily Ignitible Material. Overcurrent devices shall not be located in the vicinity of easily ignitible material, such as in clothes closets.
The words found after the comma “such as in clothes closets.” was added to the 1984 Edition of the NEC.
Just for fun I picked up the 1968 Edition and guess what, it is there also 240-16(c)
EDITED to add
In 1968 all but “such as in clothes closets” was there word for word
