Unfortunatley terms like ‘most likely’ or ‘chance’…or even ‘perhaps’ and ‘might’ carry no weight.
The only weight that is carried here is by the manufacturer’s engineered, tested, listed and labeled installation instructions and the code in force at the time of the installation…
Only these set the standard by which what ***WILL ***happen given certain conditions…
And nothing more.
By the way, I fully AGREE this needs further investigation.
But without knowing the actual requirements of the manufacturer here, any comment by your or I or anyone else ultimately ends up being a guess and nothing more…
I completely disagree with the idea that “because it is not a code” you cannot negotiate it in a real estate sale, nor can you back out of the sale because of a “Non code” issue. That must vary state by state but here in MO there is a typical inspection clause in the contract that basically says they agree to buy the home contingent on the home inspection. They can basically back out from ANY item on the home inspection, but it does not happen very often.
No doubt.
FHA an VA lenders have certain ‘standards’ that they require in their lending guidelines when it comes to the condition of a home when they approve a mortgage.
So too will some insurers.
But these are often not ‘safety’ issues but rather liability issues for the lender and risk assessments for the insurer.
Counties nor any other municipal jurisdiction will NOT do what you suggest unless they have in place Building or Property Maintenance Codes that legally address such issues.
For the record, I never said that “‘because it is not in the code’ you cannot negotiate it in a real estate deal”.
In fact, I said just the opposite.
You can negotiate anything you want.
The distinction is that when a buyer tries to negotiate something that is perfectly legal and not a ‘defect’, the buyer normally does not have any recourse to back out and will lose his earnest money if he does.
The reason is, the buyer ends up asking for an ‘upgrade’, which the seller is under no legal obligation to provide.
Asking a seller to provide GFCIs when the Code at the time did not require them is one such example.
Another is asking the seller to rebuild stairs because modern Code now requires a maximum 7 1/4" risers when the existing stairway has 8 1/2" risers (legal when constructed).
So too, would be the deck in the above photo if the Code did not require railings at the time of construction or if no Code existed at the time of construction.
A buyer has the right the ask for and try to negotiate whatever he wants…
It just doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because he asks, he is entitled to ‘receive’…
Or can walk away from the deal unpunished if his only reason is that the seller didn’t agree to his demand for ‘upgrades’…
You are missing the point homebild. We as HI’s call out defects as we see them. What happens in the Real Estate transaction is not our concern. We are concerned with our clients and our clients safety. If we think it is prudent that the residence be updatded with GFCI outlets, we write that in the report. Seems reasonable to me.
Good posts. Right in some things - wrong in many other aspects.
Like you, I’m code certified in all 4 of the One & Two Family Sections. Home Inspector (28 years), expert witness & Trainer for Inspectors, Appraisers, and we do some Code Classes.
Whether its code or NOT - in most areas you can’t make a buyer BUY something they don’t want (whether a legitimate fear or not). More and more of the real estate contracts in good sized cities, allow the buyer to renegotiate price, repairs OR walk away from a contract if the results of the inspections are not SATISFACTORY to them.
The seller does not have to agree - the buyer does not have to buy.
Its that simple. The old “Once we get their signature on the line, lets hold their feet to the fire” crapola doesn’t cut it anymore. Quickest way for a seller or realtor to get sued I can think of. Current philosophy - if they want out - lets get them out and get another buyer OR lets renegotiate.
The CODE ISSUE is often just a guise for a listing agent, shady selling agent or seller to try and get out of needed repairs or improvements.
The seller is under no obligation to upgrade their property by anyone beyond what was required at the time it was built or renovations and repairs were made, and a seller is only required to keep their home at whatever minimums Property Maintenance codes require.
Nothing more.
That’s why it is called ‘private property’. It is the owner’s to do with as he pleases. And the owner’s to improve or allow to dilapidate as he likes.
And the market value will be determined by the condition in which the seller chose to keep his property…either to his benefit or to his deficit.
More often than not, it is my experience that the buyer, the buyer’s agent, and sometimes even the home inspector, are trying to get the seller to pay for ‘upgrades’ he has no obligation to offer just so the buyer doesn’t have to pay for them himself.
Called in after the fact for sellers and listing agents as I am on occaision, I’ve seen home inspection reports that were not even based in reality and sellers who wanted every part of that fantasy world.
This is not to say that there are not shady sellers and listing agents. There are.
But there are also shady inspectors and sellers who will also try to take unwitting buyers for a ride too.
But I do not disagree. It is ‘reasonable’ to point out that no GFCIs exist or that knob and tube wiring exists in a home.
But it becomes ‘unreasonable’ when one requests ‘upgrades’ to items, like GFCIs or knob and tube wiring or any other LEGAL installation simply because the buyer/client wants the house but wants the seller to pay for his renovations.
As I have read many of the articles in this forum, it seems to me that according the NACHI (and anyone can correct me if I am wrong), that NACHI inspectors do not inspect for ‘safety’ but inspect for ‘material defect’.
While a material defect may in fact cause a safety issue, items like no GFCIs when none where ever required is NOT a ‘material defect’.
Having no guardrails on a deck when none have ever been required is NOT a ‘material defect’.
In fact, there is nothing ‘defective’ here at all…Just a perfectly sound and legal installation.
As a Code Inspector, I too am, concerned with ‘safety,’ but in my arena ‘safety’ is WELL defined by the legally adopted codes.
I can ‘suggest’ using different building techniques, methods, and materials that go well above the code minimums…They just are simply not enforceable.
I can ‘recommend’ things like Radon piping under a slab, but cannot require it because my state has no Radon Code and does not recognize national ‘standards’ as anything more than the ‘recommendations’ the 4 PiCl Federal Government ‘guesses’ should be a target mitigation level.
But at least in Code Enforcement, there are legally established minimum ‘standards’…unlike what I am understanding from many of the comments I have seen here so far regarding home inspection.
And according to some, it appears whatever the Home Inspector saysIS the ‘standard’…
By the by…I’m not arguing with ANYONE…
Just trying to understand, exchange ideas, and get a better idea what it is you folks do and why…
Pay close attention to our posts. You’re right in some cases, wrong in others.
Example: The gas company installed a copper gas line for the owner 15 years ago so he/she could have a gas starter in their fireplace. It taps off the main line right next to the meter outside and goes through the masonry chase to get to the firebox. The meter reader has read the meter (right next to the tap) every month for 15 years - no problem.
The new buyer gets an inspection and the home inspector points out that this is no longer acceptable. You can stay here forever and not be required to change it, BUT the utility company won’t turn on utilities to the new buyer until this is corrected or terminated. The NEW BUYER don’t wanta pay for this, so it gets negotiated. The seller often pays - to sell the house.
Otherwise now that they have knowledge, its no longer acceptable they’re legally bound to disclose it to other potential buyers if the 1st walks away. Other buyers will usually want it fixed **OR **the price lowered accordingly.
Now once the inspector pointed out to the buyer (his client) that the Copper Gas line installation is no longer allowed and recommends replacement, the Realtor or Seller often jump in asking the magic question - Is this required by code **OR **Is it up to the code it was built to? Thats usually asked to try and get the buyer to NOT renegotiate the change or pay for it themselves.
The City would not MAKE the seller change the gas line.
The seller is not obligated to change it for the buyer.
The buyer does not have to buy the house.
Like it or not - That is how the RE Transaction often works.
Just inspected a 86 year old house for a couple with 3 kids under 6 years old. The house they want to buy is a 2-story house with a door at the 2nd floor that opens out onto the flat roof of the 1st floor sunroom below.
There is no guardrail on this observation deck. Any half-way intelligent home inspector would tell his/her client there is the potential for a significant safety issue here **AND **recommend installing a guardrail OR removing the door **OR **nailing the door shut so it can’t be used OR …
Unless you’re a total idiot or a scum-bag selling yourself to the Agent for future business, a competent inspector will make some sort of recommendation for improvement, upgrade or repair.
Now who does it, was it up to code when built, or added onto later in life, OR if nobody does anything with it - is none of our concern. Thats open to the negotiation between the parties in the transaction.
