Originally Posted By: George Bucklin This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi folks,
I think it may be useful to discuss fire escape issues regarding emergency egress from bedrooms. There are many code issues regarding this such as height and opening size of windows, burglar bars, and whether the window is on the main level, 2nd floor, or basement bedroom that have been discussed elsewhere. Let's assume code requirements are met. What would you tell the client regarding issues beyond code (what you would hope is common sense, but may not be)?
What I would like to see is what other inspectors may tell their clients in the following cases and suggest others chime in with ideas of their own.
1. 2nd floor (or higher) bedroom. Should the inspector suggest chain or rope emergency ladders?
2. Any window. Observe for and suggest clearing any obstructions between the window exterior and the ground? (Bushes, etc.)
3. Basement window wells. For those in northern climates what do you tell the client about the possibility of snow/ice blocking the egress well? If it has a cover do you suggest that the client be sure to clear it following a snow storm?
Perhaps you may believe that these issues are beyond the scope of an inspection. If so, please explain why? It seems that these are safety issues that would be readily observable.
Regards,
George Bucklin
-- George Bucklin
Bucklin Residential Inspections
McKinney, TX
gbucklin@comcast.net
Originally Posted By: jonofrey This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I wouldn’t stray too far from what is required by TREC in the standards of practice. Understand what you are required to report and make sure you cover those items before you start dreaming up stuff.
Unless you want to be responsible for not telling a client that children playing with matches is a bad idea. As far as chain ladders and such, I don't know. I certainly don't tell my highrise condo clients that emergency parachutes are a good idea. "In case of fire, break glass, strap on chute and yell bon zai as you make like a base jumper".
Stick to the TREC requirements and remember that no good deed goes unpunished.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’ve got a “Home Owner’s Safety Checklist” as part of my inspection report that covers issues like this. It talks about procedures for testing GFCI’s, smoke detectors and CO detectors. It also goes into fire safety for multiple floor dwellings and planing escape routes etc., etc. . .
It's basically just "filler" for the report folder (an additional 75 pages), but first time home owners seem to really appreciate it.
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: jmichalski This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jeff-
That sounds like a useful little report you have there. Is it soemthing you created over time, is it a specific software feature, or is it something you purchased?
I have been compiling ll the info I can, but I am nowhere near that complete in it yet (mine is about 5 pages!!!)
Originally Posted By: jonofrey This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
dvalley wrote:
But you do make a good point mentioning these helpful hints to those homeowners with no common sense.
Damn David! Then the list will surely grow beyond 75 pages. 
When reporting, I stick to the requirement s of the law. Because what we are required to report on here in Texas is the law. A handout/pamphlet is one thing, what you include in your report is quite another.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jmichalski wrote:
Is it soemthing you created over time, is it a specific software feature, or is it something you purchased?
It's part of the packets included with my Matrix report packets I get the three-ring binder, divider tabs, CREIA standards and the "Safety Tips" booklet in each packet.
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: Don Matthews This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
This is my first post here, so please go easy with me!!javascript:emoticon(’’)
Laughing
I believe that the more information you give a client that is "above and beyond" that normally required in the scope of an inspection opens one up to the possibility of litigation at some point down the road. Say for instance that today you include in your inspection packet for owner Z some information regarding the use of escape ladders, ropes, proper use of fire extinguishers, etc., etc. - but six months ago you did NOT include that information in a packet you gave to owner X. Now for some unexplained reason owner X experiences a fire that begins in a shorting electrical outlet. His house is heavily damaged and he is burned pretty badly as well.
It just so happens that owner Z works with owner X. They get together one day over a cup of coffee after owner X is able to come back to work and owner X is telling owner Z about the fire. Owner Z asks if he had the house inspected before the fire occurred because problems with the electrical outlets sounds like something that should have been discovered as a result of the inspection. Owner X says he did and mentions your name. Owner Z says that you inspected his house too. They pull out their respective folders that you gave each of them and began to thumb through the pages. Owner X discovers that owner Z has a lot of information about how to escape from his home if it should catch fire, but there is no such information in his packet!
Well, owner X is pretty PO'd by now - having been badly burned, as well as having tremendous damage to his million$ home. Well he is going to get even with someone about this because he feels that if he had had the same information owner Z had in his packet, maybe he would have been able to escape and avoid being so badly burned and missing so much work. So he goes to see his attorneys, Dewey, Skrewem, and Howe. The pain and anguish one would suffer while trying to explain to twelve respectable citizens of the community why owner X was not given the same information as owner Z, I leave to your imagination.
As for me, I think I'll stick to the basic requirements. I'll mention the issues I feel present an immediate hazard to life and limb, like exposed wiring, CO leaks, etc., but leave the calculations of egress window locations, sizes, etc. to someone else that is getting paid to render those kinds of opinions. Or check with your attorney and get their opinion about the kind of risk you may be putting yourself at in situations such as these.
Originally Posted By: dmatthews1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Charles,
Yes, I agree. We should set ourselves apart by providing more than just the bare essentials. However, I believe that trying to set oneself too far apart from the crowd opens oneself up to undue scrutiny. I do believe that we should continue to provide as high quality service for our customers as we can, they are our bread and butter. However, I think some issues would be best discussed with legal counsel beforehand. After all they are the ones who we will need to pull our bacon out of the fire.
In other words, don't do it just because someone else is doing it...
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Here is a link I include with reports. I include it in a paragraph that is used with permission of the author (a NACHI member). It talks briefly about their safety being important and I added some links for information to help protect them. On this link has a flyer you can download for your clients too.
I think that we should not be telling clients that a chain ladder is necessary, but we are acting in good faith by educating them on safety practices that may save their life.
Originally Posted By: dmatthews1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Daniel,
I like the idea of giving the brochure from the USG...only as a matter of courtesy and matter of everyday business. We should not state or imply in any way that we are doing a fire safety check, or recommend that a customer purchase a piece of safety equipment - I still believe this opens a VERY large liability door that many attorney's are eager to RUN through!
Instead, if we note during our inspection that we have noticed that the basement is used as a living space and there are inadequate/non-existent exits, we should note on our report that we refer them to the local fire Marshall (as we would do for electrical hazards, HVAC problems, etc.) who should be expected to assist the customer with determining the best method of escape and recommending the proper equipment if necessary, thereby relieving US of unnecessary civil liability.
We have still performed our civic duty by providing the customer with information written by a governmental agency whose duty is to provide such information to the public and directing them to local resources who is probably better trained to provide such information than we. The less 'hiney' we expose the less that can be bitten off...
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I would suggest that it is not so much how much information you give them that exposes you, rather what you are properly qualified to suggest. I would agree in part with you. You may not know much about fire hazards, therefor should only stick right to SOP’s for an inspection. I on the other hand, having the training to do so, am qualified to form a professional opinion on those issues and can go above the SOP’s in doing so.
Same thing could be said for any specialized training in our profession. For instance, you may have no termite training, and should not comment on such, but another might have the training and should inform them, local laws permitting.
My only suggestion is to always remember that we are hired to look out for their interests, not to just keep our mouuths clenched for fear of litigation. Yes we need to be careful, but we also have a duty to protect their interests, which includes their safety. If you knowingly keep your mouth shut on possible safety hazards, you open up to much more litigation. And refering them to a fire marshal may do nothing, as most fire marshals have no jurisdiction on existing residences.
’)